Dear All

As usual the MPC met one day after the conclusion of the ICANN meeting to review what went well, what can be improved and how to prepare for the next ICANN meeting from a ccNSO perspective.

One of the items discussed was the "At-Large Policy Session 2: ccTLD Governance Models - Testimonies From At-Large End Users" (https://go.icann.org/3w8Mqxg)

Several comments were made, including:

Confusion as to why would ALAC host a ccTLD governance session and have people who do not work at the ccTLDs be the ones explaining how specific ccTLDs work.
If ALAC wanted to know more about ccTLDs it would have been better to hear it from the ccTLDs. The issue was that not all testimonials were factually correct i.e accusations were made on the basis of mis-representations and lack of understanding.
End users were supposed to talk about their experiences with their ccTLDs, not to explain how the ccTLD worked, nor on the perceived issues in the country between a ccTLD from a related territory and the government.

The general feelings of those attending the MPC meeting was that the session was of low quality due to lack of preparation, and some argued that in hindsight we [the ccNSO] shouldn't have participated as they felt that by participating the ccNSO gave credence to the session.

This is a small sample of comments, but I can see how others from our community might be just as confused and upset as a result of the session. Therefore, how do you propose we proceed with this matter? Should I write to the ALAC Chair? If so, what should be the goal and content of the message? Do nothing? Do you have another suggestion?

Please advise, preferably by Monday 5 of July.

Best regards,
Alejandra


	Alejandra Reynoso Investigación & Desarrollo \| Dominios .gt
	P: +502 23688565 E: alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt
	18 Ave. 11-95 Zona 15, V.H. III. (A-109) Guatemala, Guatemala
	www.gt