[ALAC] Discussion: WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures

Bastiaan Goslings bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net
Mon Aug 28 06:46:30 UTC 2017


Nice one, Holly - I am not sufficiently familiar with the intricacies of the topic to answer Alan’s question #3, so for me personally an e.g. webinar would be useful.

With regard to the representation of At-Large in the WT: to me it sounds like the decision to send a delegate per region or ex ante ‘balance their views to make sure the majority of our community has a voice’ depends on who the delegates speak on behalf of. Is that something the ALAC Appointee Selection Committee takes into account? Or if the RALO”s are responsible for the selection, what criteria are used? Does a delegate then voice the majority/consensus opinion within a RALO (= representing the region?) ? 

I assume that formally people in the WT participate in their personal capacity but share their views, feedback and updates with At-Large. But is it important to somehow manage the ‘voice’ of At-Large representatives, regionally selected or not, in a WT? To have a larger impact, as At-Large? 

(If that is what the ‘coordination’ that Seun suggests will lead to, what does that mean in terms of the diversity of views being represented?)

I do not have an explicit opinion here, but I tend to think content and what someone can bring to the discussion is more important than what region she/he comes from. From that perspective I’d be more interested in seeing to it that different views and arguments are reflected in the debate…

Bastiaan


> On 27 Aug 2017, at 17:32, h.raiche at internode.on.net wrote:
> 
> I agree with Tijani, Maureen and Seun.  But I lilke Seun's idea of coordinating what each RALO rep says - and Alan, would either a webinar or some mechanism be possible so that everyone is aware of all of the arguments?  The reps can then both represent regional views, but in the larger context of the different views on the topic
> 
> Holly 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> 
> To:
> "Maureen Hilyard" <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
> Cc:
> "ALAC" <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> Sent:
> Sun, 27 Aug 2017 16:24:13 +0100
> Subject:
> Re: [ALAC] Discussion: WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
> 
> 
> Me too, sounds like a feasible route to go. Ofcourse efforts should be made to coordinate amongst the 5 and the entire AtLarge community.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Sent from my mobile
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> 
> On Aug 27, 2017 4:15 PM, "Maureen Hilyard" <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Tijani, that the ALAC should send regional representatives each with their own opinion.
> 
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn> wrote:
> Bonjour Alan,
> 
> I’m afraid I don’t share your approach.
> 
> What you are proposing is to send to the WT a neutral (balanced) opinion. You even propose to have opinion balance rather than regional balance.
> This means that if we have more than a region with the same opinion, we have to take only one and take 2 or more from a region with various opinions. What would be the result????
> Regions much more represented than others for an issue about geographic names…..
> 
> I believe we should act exactly as we did for the CCWG: select 5 members from the 5 regions, and each member expresses his opinion in the WT. The final report of the WT will be ratified by the Chartering organizations, and that’s where the opinion of the ALAC as a whole will be shaped.  (with the understanding that we agree to the terms of reference, and that we are not bound by the outcomes until and unless we ratify them at the conclusion of WT5 work.)
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tijani BEN JEMAA
> Executive Director
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
> Phone: +216 98 330 114
>             +216 52 385 114
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> Le 27 août 2017 à 03:29, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> a écrit :
> 
> The GNSO PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures has decided to initiate a Work Track on the use geographic names at the top level, and the ALAC, along with the GNSO, ccNSO and GAC, has been invited to participate.
> 
> As a first step, co-leaders are being requested and as you know from http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2017-August/010630.html, the ALAC is seeking someone to take on this role on behalf of the ALAC.
> 
> The co-leaders, once selected, will work with the PDP WG Co-Chairs to establish the further procedures and the full terms of reference will likely be established by the WT itself However, it is envisaged that this new Work Track will operate with procedures comparable to a CCWG. If this is indeed what happens, the Work Track, unlike most GNSO PDP efforts, may include:
> 
> - Members formally appointed by the AC/SOs;
> - Participants;
> - A decision process wherein Members only may take part (used only if necessary)
> - The .
> 
> The ALAC needs to decide how it will participate, and the criteria for selecting Members (presuming this is the path chosen).
> 
> The first part, I think, is relatively simple. I believe the ALAC should agree to be a full participant with the understanding that we agree to the terms of reference, and that we are not bound by the outcomes until and unless we ratify them at the conclusion of WT5 work.
> 
> The selection of Members (if there are any) is more complex. Normally, we are allotted five Members and I would expect that to be the case here. We typically solicit volunteers and the ALAC Appointee Selection Committee makes recommendations to the ALAC, with the expectation is that there be one candidate per region.
> 
> This situation is more challenging in that the ALAC and At-Large may have a variety of positions ranging from:
> 
> - National or local governments should have absolute control over the use of their names (or other geographic identifiers); to
> - We have many examples of the use of geographic names in existing domains and there is no evidence of harm, so we should allow a very liberal use of geographic names in the new TLDs.
> - In between, there are views that there should be a mechanism to arbitrate when there are different parties seeking a name, or a process like the Trademark Clearinghouse where parties can register their "interest" in a name.
> 
> It is therefore really important to understand the variety of views and make sure that our delegation to the WT represents all of these.
> 
> In order to do this, I think we need a discussion of what positions are held. This is NOT an opportunity to agree or disagree with positions presented, but to simply understand how views vary within At-Large.
> 
> I would like to open the discussion on this list to start with, and once we have a good idea of ideas, to validate them with the wider At-Large Community.
> 
> With this mail, I am soliciting input on three questions:
> 
> 1. Do you agree with my proposal on the conditions for participating or if not, what do you propose instead?
> 
> 2. Assuming we will be asked to appoint Members, should we try to balance their views to make sure the majority of our community has a voice on the WT? This *might* mean we end up balancing views and not have all five regions represented.
> 
> 3. What are your views on how to address the use of geographic names in Top Level Domains?
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> 
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> 
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> 
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> 
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)




More information about the ALAC mailing list