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@topnet.tn
wrote:
Hi Yrjô,
My comment in line
Le 28 août 2017 à 13:12, Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org < alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini < vanda@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> Date: Monday, August 28, 2017 at 02:55 To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: 'ALAC List' <alac@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@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 don’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. That’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 août 2017 à 16:41, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@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,
I̢۪m afraid I don̢۪t 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 that̢۪s 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 août 2017 à 03:29, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@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@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@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@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@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!