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

Maureen Hilyard maureen.hilyard at gmail.com
Mon Aug 28 13:02:42 UTC 2017


Hi everyone

Just catching up with this interesting conversation.

My view of the representation stays with geographic, in keeping with the
multistakeholder model we have used for other CCWG memberships.

My thoughts are that it is ironic that we, who are normally asking for
consensus from among the diverse views we often bring to the table on our
own issues, should now be asked that the views expressed from the ALAC for
this cross-community group must be specifically and purposefully diverse.
The method seems orchestrated to me. Yet within the ALAC, although
individual views may appear similar, they also incorporate different
personal, cultural and societal as well as political contexts which provide
the diversity that regional ALAC members would take to the CCWG anyway,
would they not?. I thought that was the multistakeholder model.

Making a mark in the sand, my view in a nutshell is that governments should
have the final say on specific geographical names. As a member of the dot
Asia Board my view on regional names is more fluid.


On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 2:13 AM, <h.raiche at internode.on.net> wrote:

> 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" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>
> To:
> "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche at internode.on.net>
> Cc:
> "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, "Tijani BEN JEMAA" <
> tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>, "ALAC" <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> 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, <h.raiche at internode.on.net> 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" <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>
>
> To:
> "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> Cc:
> "ALAC" <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> 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 <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> 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 <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > 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 <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.icannorg
> <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://communityicann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+
> Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> <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)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170828/154c8db2/attachment.html>


More information about the ALAC mailing list