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

Kan Kaili kankaili at gmail.com
Tue Aug 29 17:18:16 UTC 2017

Hi to all,

As this discussion started, I have been placing myself on the sideline, mostly to see how it will evolve.  Now that it seems like most people have expressed their opinions, mine is as the following:

Starting with Alan's 3rd question, my "views on how to address the use of geographic names in Top Level Domains":  To tell the truth, I don't know.  However, what I do know is, as a rep from ALAC on this WT5, my goal is to represent and protect end-users' interests.  Even after given the three categories of  positions, they each seem to have their own merit, while the pros and cons of each position may become even more fuzzy, especially considering this is likely to be a relatively long process by solving the problem piece by piece.  I guess this might be the situation of most people from At-Large, and not only of those less familier with the topic (like myself).

Thus, I do not think we should choose people to represent At-Large according to their current positions.  Instead, I believe the criteria to choose the people should be that they are most willing to and capable of representing end-users' interests.  This is not only because we want to preserve the geographic diversity of At-Large (different RALOs have different situations and may prefer different solutions), but also because the positions themselves could be fluid over time and vary among individual cases.

My personal opinion for your consideration, and hopefully not too late.  Thank you!


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
To: "ALAC" <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2017 10:29 AM
Subject: [ALAC] Discussion: WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures

> 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)

More information about the ALAC mailing list