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

Mon Aug 28 15:30:21 UTC 2017

Hello,

I think what may be important is that there is an opportunity to understand
our diverse view and that IMO should not imply that we then ensure to have
a single position. However there are issues that may so end up to be shared
by us all and when some don't happen that way we shouldn't attempt to make
it so. Our diversity should ultimately be our strength.

That said, it does seem to me that "how we participate" is the only thing
formerly on the table for discussion now hence there are no Geo topics
related issues at the moment. I look forward to participating in this
particular WG (I hope there will be option for participants apart from the
selected 5?) and yes I think we should take note of the Evan's caution.

Regards

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn
> wrote:

> Hi Yrjô,
>
> My comment in line
>
> Le 28 août 2017 à 13:12, Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
> Dear all,
>
> Since this topic is an important one   in the developing ALAC-GAC
> relationship, I offer my opinion in my liaison role, even though I'm not an
> ALAC member.
>
> In an negotiating situation, a party is the the more influential, the more
> coherent stand it can take. Thats why I support Vanda's approach, ie. to
> try to develop one line of argument , even though it itself will be a
> compromise among different opinions among us.
>
>
> And that’s exactly what we have to avoid (having a single position
> consisting in a compromise between all opinions). You mean a flat position.
> What is the added value of having arranged position? As Maureen said, it is
> an orchestration.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
> Executive Director
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
> Phone: +216 98 330 114 <+216%2098%20330%20114>
>             +216 52 385 114 <+216%2052%20385%20114>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
>
>
>
>
> I think that the process suggested by Alan would be best suited for
> leading to that result.
>
> Best,
>
> Yrjö
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org <
> alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini <
> vanda at scartezini.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 28, 2017 3:11 PM
> *To:* Tijani BEN JEMAA; Alan Greenberg
> *Cc:* ALAC
> *Subject:* Re: [ALAC] Discussion: WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent
> Procedures
>
> Our region may have different opinions , ones more aligned with GAC others
> more aligned with GNSO point of view.
> Whatever the opinions, I believe ALAC shall listen all points and build
> one line of argument, with limits to allow concessions during the debate.
>  My 2 cents
> *Vanda Scartezini*
> *Polo Consultores Associados*
> *Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004*
> *01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil*
> *Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 <+55%2011%203266-6253>*
> *Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 <+55%2011%2098181-1464> *
> *Sorry for any typos. *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: <alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Tijani BEN
> JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>
> Date: Monday, August 28, 2017 at 02:55
> To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> Cc: 'ALAC List' <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> 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%2098%20330%20114>
>             +216 52 385 114 <+216%2052%20385%20114>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
>
>
> 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 Â«  we may
> consider opinion balance rather than regional balance, the difference is
> very clear and the divergence is there.
>
> We donâ€™t 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. Thatâ€™s 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%2098%20330%20114>
>           +216 52 385 114 <+216%2052%20385%20114>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
>
>
> Le 27 aoÃ»t 2017 Ã  16:41, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > a
> Ã©crit :
>
> 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,
>
> IÃ¢€™m afraid I donÃ¢€™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…Â¦..
>
> 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 thatÃ¢€™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%2098%20330%20114>
>           +216 52 385 114 <+216%2052%20385%20114>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
>
>
>
> Le 27 aoÃƒÂ»t 2017 Ãƒ  03:29, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca >
> a ÃƒÂ©crit :
>
> 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+A
> dvisory+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+A
> dvisory+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/di
> splay/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170828/e4bc72e2/attachment.html>