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
Bonjour Alan, I’m afraid I don’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….. 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 that’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 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
I agree with Tijani, that the ALAC should send regional representatives each with their own opinion. On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> wrote:
Bonjour Alan,
I’m afraid I don’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…..
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 that’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 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+ Advisory+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+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
Me too, sounds like a feasible route to go. Ofcourse efforts should be made to coordinate amongst the 5 and the entire AtLarge community. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 27, 2017 4:15 PM, "Maureen Hilyard" <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Tijani, that the ALAC should send regional representatives each with their own opinion.
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> wrote:
Bonjour Alan,
I’m afraid I don’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…..
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 that’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 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/di splay/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+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)
_______________________________________________ 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+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
I agree with Tijani, Maureen and Seun. But I lilke Seun's idea of coordinating what each RALO rep says - and Alan, would either a webinar or some mechanism be possible so that everyone is aware of all of the arguments? The reps can then both represent regional views, but in the larger context of the different views on the topic Holly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Seun Ojedeji" To:"Maureen Hilyard" Cc:"ALAC" , "Alan Greenberg" Sent:Sun, 27 Aug 2017 16:24:13 +0100 Subject:Re: [ALAC] Discussion: WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Me too, sounds like a feasible route to go. Ofcourse efforts should be made to coordinate amongst the 5 and the entire AtLarge community. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 27, 2017 4:15 PM, "Maureen Hilyard" wrote: I agree with Tijani, that the ALAC should send regional representatives each with their own opinion. On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: Bonjour Alan, I’m afraid I don’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….. 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 that’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 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-listsicann.org/pipermail/alac/2017-August/010630.html [4], 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 [5] https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [6] At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [7] ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) [8] _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...) [12] _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...) [16] Links: ------ [1] mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com [2] mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn [3] mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca [4] http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2017-August/010630.html [5] mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org [6] https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [7] http://www.atlarge.icann.org [8] https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) [9] mailto:ALAC@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+(ALA...) [13] mailto:ALAC@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+(ALA...)
I also agree with Tijani and following. It was Holly's best to consult the Rails. The history of .amazon and .patagonia give the reasons for this consultation. In the case of .patagonia: when ICANN opens the subject to public comment, it had 1149 comments, the majority opposed to the granting to the private company. For this there were numerous movements in social networks, our own ALSs, and the governments of the countries involved, although these did not have the necessary force. The company withdrew its order. Amazon I do not give details because it is very current. But I was struck by a publication of several organizations where he said that they defend us, they should first consult us. This statement was because they had the main foundations for not assigning the domain to the private company. Regards Alberto De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de h.raiche@internode.on.net Enviado el: domingo, 27 de agosto de 2017 12:33 p.m. Para: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>; Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> CC: ALAC <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Asunto: Re: [ALAC] Discussion: WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures I agree with Tijani, Maureen and Seun. But I lilke Seun's idea of coordinating what each RALO rep says - and Alan, would either a webinar or some mechanism be possible so that everyone is aware of all of the arguments? The reps can then both represent regional views, but in the larger context of the different views on the topic Holly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> > To: "Maureen Hilyard" <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> > Cc: "ALAC" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > Sent: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 16:24:13 +0100 Subject: Re: [ALAC] Discussion: WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Me too, sounds like a feasible route to go. Ofcourse efforts should be made to coordinate amongst the 5 and the entire AtLarge community. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 27, 2017 4:15 PM, "Maureen Hilyard" <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> > wrote: I agree with Tijani, that the ALAC should send regional representatives each with their own opinion. On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> > wrote: Bonjour Alan, I’m afraid I don’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….. 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 that’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 52 385 114 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Le 27 août 2017 à 03:29, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto: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 <mailto: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+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-listsicann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://wwwatlarge.icann.org> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-listsicann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://wwwatlarge.icann.org> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) --- El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Nice one, Holly - I am not sufficiently familiar with the intricacies of the topic to answer Alan’s question #3, so for me personally an e.g. webinar would be useful. With regard to the representation of At-Large in the WT: to me it sounds like the decision to send a delegate per region or ex ante ‘balance their views to make sure the majority of our community has a voice’ depends on who the delegates speak on behalf of. Is that something the ALAC Appointee Selection Committee takes into account? Or if the RALO”s are responsible for the selection, what criteria are used? Does a delegate then voice the majority/consensus opinion within a RALO (= representing the region?) ? I assume that formally people in the WT participate in their personal capacity but share their views, feedback and updates with At-Large. But is it important to somehow manage the ‘voice’ of At-Large representatives, regionally selected or not, in a WT? To have a larger impact, as At-Large? (If that is what the ‘coordination’ that Seun suggests will lead to, what does that mean in terms of the diversity of views being represented?) I do not have an explicit opinion here, but I tend to think content and what someone can bring to the discussion is more important than what region she/he comes from. From that perspective I’d be more interested in seeing to it that different views and arguments are reflected in the debate… Bastiaan
On 27 Aug 2017, at 17:32, h.raiche@internode.on.net wrote:
I agree with Tijani, Maureen and Seun. But I lilke Seun's idea of coordinating what each RALO rep says - and Alan, would either a webinar or some mechanism be possible so that everyone is aware of all of the arguments? The reps can then both represent regional views, but in the larger context of the different views on the topic
Holly
----- Original Message ----- From: "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
To: "Maureen Hilyard" <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Cc: "ALAC" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 16:24:13 +0100 Subject: Re: [ALAC] Discussion: WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
Me too, sounds like a feasible route to go. Ofcourse efforts should be made to coordinate amongst the 5 and the entire AtLarge community.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Aug 27, 2017 4:15 PM, "Maureen Hilyard" <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: I agree with Tijani, that the ALAC should send regional representatives each with their own opinion.
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> wrote: Bonjour Alan,
I’m afraid I don’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…..
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 that’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 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ 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+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Dear Alan , dear colleagues, 1. Do you agree with my proposal on the conditions for participating or if not, what do you propose instead? Considering the background you have provided, i agree in principal that the ALAC should participate. With regard to the diversity, i agree with Tijani's proposal, issues pertaining to Geographic names require views from every region as opposed to a select group that might not have the mandate to collate feedback from their respective regions. 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. Imho, any discussion on geographic regions cannot be valid without the views of representatives from the respective regions otherwise there will be no diversity, if we are to appoint members we have to ensure that there is regional diversity and that we coordinate their voices as much as we can as has been pointed above. 3. What are your views on how to address the use of geographic names in Top Level Domains? I would prefer a cross community approach to avoid the challenges encountered in the first round. Regional diversity is also key in any discussion on geographic names in Top level domains. This can be achieved through appointments of participants in the relevant SOs and ACs that reflect regional diversity and balance. Best Regards On 8/28/17, Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> wrote:
Nice one, Holly - I am not sufficiently familiar with the intricacies of the topic to answer Alan’s question #3, so for me personally an e.g. webinar would be useful.
With regard to the representation of At-Large in the WT: to me it sounds like the decision to send a delegate per region or ex ante ‘balance their views to make sure the majority of our community has a voice’ depends on who the delegates speak on behalf of. Is that something the ALAC Appointee Selection Committee takes into account? Or if the RALO”s are responsible for the selection, what criteria are used? Does a delegate then voice the majority/consensus opinion within a RALO (= representing the region?) ?
I assume that formally people in the WT participate in their personal capacity but share their views, feedback and updates with At-Large. But is it important to somehow manage the ‘voice’ of At-Large representatives, regionally selected or not, in a WT? To have a larger impact, as At-Large?
(If that is what the ‘coordination’ that Seun suggests will lead to, what does that mean in terms of the diversity of views being represented?)
I do not have an explicit opinion here, but I tend to think content and what someone can bring to the discussion is more important than what region she/he comes from. From that perspective I’d be more interested in seeing to it that different views and arguments are reflected in the debate…
Bastiaan
On 27 Aug 2017, at 17:32, h.raiche@internode.on.net wrote:
I agree with Tijani, Maureen and Seun. But I lilke Seun's idea of coordinating what each RALO rep says - and Alan, would either a webinar or some mechanism be possible so that everyone is aware of all of the arguments? The reps can then both represent regional views, but in the larger context of the different views on the topic
Holly
----- Original Message ----- From: "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
To: "Maureen Hilyard" <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Cc: "ALAC" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 16:24:13 +0100 Subject: Re: [ALAC] Discussion: WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
Me too, sounds like a feasible route to go. Ofcourse efforts should be made to coordinate amongst the 5 and the entire AtLarge community.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Aug 27, 2017 4:15 PM, "Maureen Hilyard" <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: I agree with Tijani, that the ALAC should send regional representatives each with their own opinion.
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> wrote: Bonjour Alan,
I’m afraid I don’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…..
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 that’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 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ 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+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
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 <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>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>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 <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>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+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
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 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,
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@mcgill.ca <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA... <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...> )
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+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Personally, I see this all as just laying down and letting the process run over us. Yet once more At-Large is driven to be reactive to industry whims rather than proactive of the interests of the Internet-using community who we exist to serve (1). Here we are, getting into the details of what subsequent rounds will be like, while there are significant pockets of opinion that that no expansion AT ALL proceed until sufficient study has been done of the benefits/harms of previous rounds. Indeed, the feedback received from such research might have direct impact on issues such as geographic names, so IMO this WG is FAR FAR premature. The industry compact of domain sellers and speculative buyers -- the overwhelming beneficiaries of the expansion(2) -- is driving this to happen through the GNSO, and ALAC is one of the few voices that even has the ICANN-given mandate to slow it down and have it done right (if at all). That something as significant as the subsequent-round process is GNSO driven and not a full CCWG is cause for concern. Obviously too few lessons have been learned from the debacles of the past. So At-Large is back in reaction mode just like we were the first time. Likewise, that the GAC is "invited to participate" in the discussion of geo names, rather than itself be the driver, is an indictment of ICANN's process. The result of this mess is a continuation (and perhaps escalation) of the kind of problems that exist with Amazon and the Red Cross, a continued erosion of trust in ICANN's stewardship of domains, and a further undermining of multistakeholderism in general. I would consider unacceptable any participation in such a WG without explicit disclaimer that its work -- as that of the other WGs involved in this PDP -- cannot be considered finished until a substantial review of the previous round has taken place and that the results of any such review be integrated in the WGs' outcomes. (1) It is most tempting here to use the term "public interest", but I prefer not to re-enter that hurricane (2) To be honest, ICANN itself is a beneficiary of the expansion, as it is now financially dependent on maximizing domain sales - Evan
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 <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>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,
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 <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>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>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 <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>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+Advisory+Committee+(ALA... )
ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>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+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
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@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@mcgill.ca <mailto: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,
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@mcgill.ca <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA... <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...> )
ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA... <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...> )
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. On the what, I don't believe we have canvassed what our views are. 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 ----- 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 [4] , 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 [5] https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [6] At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [7] ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA... [8] ) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org [9] https://atlarge-lists.icannorg/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+(ALA... [12] ) Links: ------ [1] mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca [2] mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca [3] mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca [4] http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2017-August/010630.html [5] mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org [6] https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [7] http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ [8] https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA... [9] mailto:ALAC@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+(ALA...
Hello Holy, kindly find inline: Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 28, 2017 12:33 PM, <h.raiche@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@topnet.tn> To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: "ALAC" <alac@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%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 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%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, 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%2098%20330%20114> +216 52 385 114 ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- 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+ Advisory+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+ Advisory+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+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
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@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+(ALA... [12] ) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA... [16] ) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...) [20] Links: ------ [1] mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net [2] mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn [3] mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca [4] mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org [5] mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca [6] mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca [7] mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca [8] http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2017-August/010630.html [9] mailto:ALAC@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+(ALA... [13] mailto:ALAC@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+(ALA... [17] mailto:ALAC@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+(ALA...)
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@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@gmail.com>
To: "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche@internode.on.net> Cc: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "Tijani BEN JEMAA" < tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>, "ALAC" <alac@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@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@topnet.tn>
To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: "ALAC" <alac@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@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@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@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+ Advisory+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+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC )
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...>
_______________________________________________ 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+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
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 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>> Date: Monday, August 28, 2017 at 02:55 To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: 'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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 52 385 114 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Le 27 août 2017 à 22:11, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto: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 52 385 114 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Le 27 août 2017 à 16:41, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto: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, I’m afraid I don’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…¦.. 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 that’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 52 385 114 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Le 27 août 2017 à 03:29, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto: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<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org<http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA... ) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org<http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA... )
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. 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 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>> Date: Monday, August 28, 2017 at 02:55 To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: 'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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 52 385 114 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Le 27 août 2017 à 22:11, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto: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 52 385 114 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Le 27 août 2017 à 16:41, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto: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, I’m afraid I don’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…¦.. 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 that’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 52 385 114 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Le 27 août 2017 à 03:29, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto: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<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org<http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA... ) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org<http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA... )
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 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos.
From: <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>> Date: Monday, August 28, 2017 at 02:55 To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: 'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto: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 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 27 août 2017 à 22:11, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto: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 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 27 août 2017 à 16:41, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto: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 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 27 août 2017 à 03:29, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA... <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...> )
ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA... <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...> )
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!
+1 Seun +1,000 Evan Enviado desde mi iPhone
El ago. 28, 2017, a las 12:30 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> escribió:
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 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 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 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, > > I’m afraid I don’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…¦.. > > 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 that’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 52 385 114 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> 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+Advisory+Committee+(ALA... ) _______________________________________________ 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+Advisory+Committee+(ALA... )
_______________________________________________ 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+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
_______________________________________________ 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+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
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! Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> To: "ALAC" <alac@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@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+(ALA...)
participants (14)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Alberto Soto -
Barrack Otieno -
Bastiaan Goslings -
Evan Leibovitch -
h.raiche＠internode.on.net -
Judith Hellerstein -
Kan Kaili -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Maureen Hilyard -
Seun Ojedeji -
Tijani BEN JEMAA -
Vanda Scartezini -
Yrjö Länsipuro