[ALAC] Discussion: WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
h.raiche at internode.on.net
h.raiche at internode.on.net
Mon Aug 28 12:13:43 UTC 2017
Thanks Seun
The topic - Geographic names which have been a contentious issue.
Alan outlines the various views that have been taken. And different
countries in different regions have taken quite different views on the
issue. So Alan is quite correct in saying that there may not be one
ALAC view - but several. I can imagine there will be several. So
if we have further information - and whatever can be done by email is
fine - those who are interested (It's one of the myriad of issues
raised by the new gTLDs) should at least understand the different
viewpoints - and I suspect there may be many - not just 5!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Seun Ojedeji"
To:"Holly Raiche"
Cc:"Alan Greenberg" , "Tijani BEN JEMAA" , "ALAC"
Sent:Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:01:02 +0100
Subject:Re: [ALAC] Discussion: WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures
Hello Holy, kindly find inline: Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Aug 28, 2017 12:33 PM, wrote:
Folks
I think this exchange is at cross purposes - it is about how ALAC is
represented and what the representatives who are selected say.
I (and others) agree on the how - regional representation.
SO: Ack.
On the what, I don't believe we have canvassed what our views are.
SO: Am unsure about what we will be talking about considering that
the group is yet to be setup. Our views on what exactly?
And that is why I suggested a webinar/conference call or something
so that those who are interested can discuss just what their position
is. And it may be that there are different views held amongst us -
and not necessarily along regional lines. But let's find out please.
SO: I really like to utilize email as much as possible. Unless there
is significant reason why this should go to calls otherwise please
let's discuss via mail.
Regards
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tijani BEN JEMAA"
To:"Alan Greenberg"
Cc:"ALAC"
Sent:Mon, 28 Aug 2017 05:55:54 +0000
Subject:Re: [ALAC] Discussion: WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures
Yes Alan, we need all communities opinion be expressed freely, without
any control.Even if a region has a unique opinion, different from the
all other views, its opinion must have its way to be expressed. Trying
to shape the position of our representatives would be a kind of
control.
I feel really inconfortable to continue this discussion. I do wish
that we operate exactly as we did in the CCWG Accountability. It
worked well; Why change a system that worked well?????
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 22:11, Alan Greenberg a écrit :
Tijani, why do you say that attempting to ensure that multiple
views are represented will result in a "neutral" group It could be
that there are only two main views and a majority of At-large espouses
one of them.
The difference between this and other groups that we have worked in
is that in most other cases, At-Large to a great extent was speaking
from a single point of view, perhaps with minor variations. That *may*
be the case here, or not. That is what I was trying to determine.
And the question I was asking is that IF there are multiple views, do
we want to try to ensure through the selection process that they are
represented? That is a separate question from whether we ensure that
we have five regional reps which so far there is strong support for
(as expected).
To use your own words, this is in the interest of diversity.
Diversity of views and not only geographic regions.
Alan
At 27/08/2017 01:24 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
Alan,
You know that I hate disagreeing with you. But when you say « we
may consider opinion balance rather than regional balance, the
difference is very clear and the divergence is there.
We donât need to go to the WT with a single harmonized, balanced
(neutral at the end of the day) view, but bring the views of our
respective communities. Thatâs the interest of the diversity.
The model of our participation in the CCWG is be followed in my
opinion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 16:41, Alan Greenberg a écrit :
Tijani and others,
You are disagreeing with one small POSSIBLE consequence of what I
suggested and I am not sure to what extent you are disagreeing with
the main part, that we TRY to ensure that all major viewpoints held by
At-Large people are represented.
It is fine to say that if we don't like the outcome, we will not
ratify it, but just as in our reply to Rec 1 of the review, we say we
are MUCH better off if we can effect the outcome so it is good, rather
than just object afterwards, in this case, we need to ensure that our
participants in the process represent the range of views.
Alan
At 27/08/2017 06:53 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
Bonjour Alan,
Iâm afraid I donât 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 thatâs 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 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
[8] , 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 [9]
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [10]
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [11]
ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC
[12] ) _______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org [13]
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [14]
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [15]
ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC
[16] )
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org [17]
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [18]
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [19]
ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
[20]
Links:
------
[1] mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net
[2] mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn
[3] mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
[4] mailto:alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[5] mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
[6] mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
[7] mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
[8]
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2017-August/010630.html
[9] mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[10] https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
[11] http://www.atlarge.icann.org/
[12]
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC
[13] mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[14] https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
[15] http://www.atlarge.icann.org/
[16]
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC
[17] mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[18] https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
[19] http://www.atlarge.icann.org
[20]
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170828/b635d403/attachment.html>
More information about the ALAC
mailing list