[Request for Advice] ALAC session at ICANN 71
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 -- [image: Photograph] *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
Hi Alejandra, I think we should approach ALAC Chair, suggesting that for the next time they want to organize sessions that include ccTLD's topics, to get in contact with us. Let them know that we will be available and happy to participate and cooperate with topics in which we have the expertise. In my opinion a letter would be the better way. Best Regards, Laura El mié, 30 jun 2021 a las 15:38, Alejandra Reynoso via Ccnso-council (< ccnso-council@icann.org>) escribió:
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
--
[image: Photograph]
*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
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Laura Margolis +598 99690992 skype: lauri.margolis
Good morning Alejandra, Whilst i agree with the general sentiments expressed i would also like to request us to look at the whole issue from different lenses or perspectives. It depicts the 'Communities Understanding' of the ccTLD world. Was it perfect 'No' and understandably so due to the fact that laymen were discussing governance of country code Top Level Domain Registries from their 'lenses' I view this as a great way of outreach despite the fact that it did not meet most of our expectations. It also demonstrates the interest in the work of the ccNSO. The fact that the session was anchored on Katrina's presentation shined a spotlight on the work of the ccNSO which certainly came with its own gravitas. Furthermore as the ICANN Community grows and opens up, we will see cases of people determined to speak about issues they are passionate about which definitely requires the right guidance. Viewing it from the lenses of a 'techie', it may have been disappointing. From an outreach perspective, it may have positive impact. Looking at the numbers in the recently published ICANN 71 Stats, i can posit that there may have been something useful that attracted such a large participation of Community members in the session. Might we attempt to have an evidence based approach to come up with conclusions on the efficacy of the session? That said, there are many organizational aspects that can be improved on should there be a repeat of the session in future. Thank you Best Regards On 2021-06-30 21:37, Alejandra Reynoso via Ccnso-council wrote:
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 [1]
Links: ------ [1] http://www.gt/ _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear All- whilst in full agreement with Laura and Barrack's comments , let me also note that misconceptions and misinterpretations typically stem from insufficient information or an absence thereof. Perhaps, we should request an hour at an ALAC gathering to better explain what ccTLDs are about? Doing such presentations across my region for governments and business I have long found out that they have no clue of the respective policy framework, nor do they appear versed in ccTLDs' mandate and commitments. Will be happy to be of assistance in this regard as I have a suitable slide deck at hand. Thank you, L. Leonid Todorov GM l.todorov@aptld.org Skype: leonid.todorov Mob/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +7 963 623 4307 www.aptld.org APTLD on Twitter: https://twitter.com/aptldnews APTLD on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aptld/ On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 06:12, barrack--- via Ccnso-council < ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
Good morning Alejandra,
Whilst i agree with the general sentiments expressed i would also like to request us to look at the whole issue from different lenses or perspectives. It depicts the 'Communities Understanding' of the ccTLD world. Was it perfect 'No' and understandably so due to the fact that laymen were discussing governance of country code Top Level Domain Registries from their 'lenses'
I view this as a great way of outreach despite the fact that it did not meet most of our expectations. It also demonstrates the interest in the work of the ccNSO. The fact that the session was anchored on Katrina's presentation shined a spotlight on the work of the ccNSO which certainly came with its own gravitas. Furthermore as the ICANN Community grows and opens up, we will see cases of people determined to speak about issues they are passionate about which definitely requires the right guidance.
Viewing it from the lenses of a 'techie', it may have been disappointing. From an outreach perspective, it may have positive impact. Looking at the numbers in the recently published ICANN 71 Stats, i can posit that there may have been something useful that attracted such a large participation of Community members in the session. Might we attempt to have an evidence based approach to come up with conclusions on the efficacy of the session?
That said, there are many organizational aspects that can be improved on should there be a repeat of the session in future.
Thank you
Best Regards
On 2021-06-30 21:37, Alejandra Reynoso via Ccnso-council wrote:
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 [1]
Links: ------ [1] http://www.gt/ _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
I also agree with that ☺ De : Ccnso-council [mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Leonid Todorov via Ccnso-council Envoyé : jeudi 1 juillet 2021 11:01 À : Barrack Otieno <barrack@aftld.org> Cc : ccNSO Council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Objet : Re: [ccnso-council] [Request for Advice] ALAC session at ICANN 71 Dear All- whilst in full agreement with Laura and Barrack's comments , let me also note that misconceptions and misinterpretations typically stem from insufficient information or an absence thereof. Perhaps, we should request an hour at an ALAC gathering to better explain what ccTLDs are about? Doing such presentations across my region for governments and business I have long found out that they have no clue of the respective policy framework, nor do they appear versed in ccTLDs' mandate and commitments. Will be happy to be of assistance in this regard as I have a suitable slide deck at hand. Thank you, L. Leonid Todorov GM l.todorov@aptld.org<mailto:l.todorov@aptld.org> Skype: leonid.todorov Mob/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +7 963 623 4307 www.aptld.org<http://www.aptld.org> APTLD on Twitter: https://twitter.com/aptldnews APTLD on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aptld/ On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 06:12, barrack--- via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> wrote: Good morning Alejandra, Whilst i agree with the general sentiments expressed i would also like to request us to look at the whole issue from different lenses or perspectives. It depicts the 'Communities Understanding' of the ccTLD world. Was it perfect 'No' and understandably so due to the fact that laymen were discussing governance of country code Top Level Domain Registries from their 'lenses' I view this as a great way of outreach despite the fact that it did not meet most of our expectations. It also demonstrates the interest in the work of the ccNSO. The fact that the session was anchored on Katrina's presentation shined a spotlight on the work of the ccNSO which certainly came with its own gravitas. Furthermore as the ICANN Community grows and opens up, we will see cases of people determined to speak about issues they are passionate about which definitely requires the right guidance. Viewing it from the lenses of a 'techie', it may have been disappointing. From an outreach perspective, it may have positive impact. Looking at the numbers in the recently published ICANN 71 Stats, i can posit that there may have been something useful that attracted such a large participation of Community members in the session. Might we attempt to have an evidence based approach to come up with conclusions on the efficacy of the session? That said, there are many organizational aspects that can be improved on should there be a repeat of the session in future. Thank you Best Regards On 2021-06-30 21:37, Alejandra Reynoso via Ccnso-council wrote:
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<mailto:alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt>
18 Ave. 11-95 Zona 15, V.H. III. (A-109) Guatemala, Guatemala
www.gt<http://www.gt> [1]
Links: ------ [1] http://www.gt/ _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
Im also in agreement with Barrack & Laura. It was an imperfect session (I know of no perfect ones) but In my view Katrina made it work very well and it was well attended. After balancing all equities, that session was, IMHO, a good thing for our community and the ICANN community as a whole. ccTLDs/ccNSO should always have a life and a presence outside of its comfort zone, and be challenged a bit. Silos and echo-chambers are never good; and are the antonym of multistakeholderism in many ways. I also think that the direct interface between Alexandra and Maureen is a very good natural thing and I’m fully confident that all kinks can be worked out for any future session, given the evident good faith and collaborative spirit involved. On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 6:20 AM marienoemie.marques--- via Ccnso-council < ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
I also agree with that J
*De :* Ccnso-council [mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org] *De la part de* Leonid Todorov via Ccnso-council *Envoyé :* jeudi 1 juillet 2021 11:01 *À :* Barrack Otieno <barrack@aftld.org> *Cc :* ccNSO Council <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Objet :* Re: [ccnso-council] [Request for Advice] ALAC session at ICANN 71
Dear All-
whilst in full agreement with Laura and Barrack's comments , let me also note that misconceptions and misinterpretations typically stem from insufficient information or an absence thereof.
Perhaps, we should request an hour at an ALAC gathering to better explain what ccTLDs are about? Doing such presentations across my region for governments and business I have long found out that they have no clue of the respective policy framework, nor do they appear versed in ccTLDs' mandate and commitments.
Will be happy to be of assistance in this regard as I have a suitable slide deck at hand.
Thank you,
L.
Leonid Todorov GM
l.todorov@aptld.org
Skype: leonid.todorov
Mob/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +7 963 623 4307
www.aptld.org
APTLD on Twitter: https://twitter.com/aptldnews
APTLD on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aptld/
On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 06:12, barrack--- via Ccnso-council < ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
Good morning Alejandra,
Whilst i agree with the general sentiments expressed i would also like to request us to look at the whole issue from different lenses or perspectives. It depicts the 'Communities Understanding' of the ccTLD world. Was it perfect 'No' and understandably so due to the fact that laymen were discussing governance of country code Top Level Domain Registries from their 'lenses'
I view this as a great way of outreach despite the fact that it did not meet most of our expectations. It also demonstrates the interest in the work of the ccNSO. The fact that the session was anchored on Katrina's presentation shined a spotlight on the work of the ccNSO which certainly came with its own gravitas. Furthermore as the ICANN Community grows and opens up, we will see cases of people determined to speak about issues they are passionate about which definitely requires the right guidance.
Viewing it from the lenses of a 'techie', it may have been disappointing. From an outreach perspective, it may have positive impact. Looking at the numbers in the recently published ICANN 71 Stats, i can posit that there may have been something useful that attracted such a large participation of Community members in the session. Might we attempt to have an evidence based approach to come up with conclusions on the efficacy of the session?
That said, there are many organizational aspects that can be improved on should there be a repeat of the session in future.
Thank you
Best Regards
On 2021-06-30 21:37, Alejandra Reynoso via Ccnso-council wrote:
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 [1]
Links: ------ [1] http://www.gt/ _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi all, I was not present at that MPC meeting but, at first, I think the doubts that arose in Alejandra's first e-mail are quite pertinent. I follow the comments already sent to the list, and I'm in line with the summary made by Leonid. I think that the ALAC chair should be contacted by Alejandra best! demi On 01/07/2021 06:01, Leonid Todorov via Ccnso-council wrote:
Dear All-
whilst in full agreement with Laura and Barrack's comments , let me also note that misconceptions and misinterpretations typically stem from insufficient information or an absence thereof. Perhaps, we should request an hour at an ALAC gathering to better explain what ccTLDs are about? Doing such presentations across my region for governments and business I have long found out that they have no clue of the respective policy framework, nor do they appear versed in ccTLDs' mandate and commitments. Will be happy to be of assistance in this regard as I have a suitable slide deck at hand.
Thank you,
L. Leonid Todorov GM l.todorov@aptld.org <mailto:l.todorov@aptld.org> Skype: leonid.todorov Mob/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +7 963 623 4307 www.aptld.org <http://www.aptld.org> APTLD on Twitter: https://twitter.com/aptldnews <https://twitter.com/aptldnews> APTLD on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aptld/ <https://www.facebook.com/aptld/>
On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 06:12, barrack--- via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> wrote:
Good morning Alejandra,
Whilst i agree with the general sentiments expressed i would also like to request us to look at the whole issue from different lenses or perspectives. It depicts the 'Communities Understanding' of the ccTLD world. Was it perfect 'No' and understandably so due to the fact that laymen were discussing governance of country code Top Level Domain Registries from their 'lenses'
I view this as a great way of outreach despite the fact that it did not meet most of our expectations. It also demonstrates the interest in the work of the ccNSO. The fact that the session was anchored on Katrina's presentation shined a spotlight on the work of the ccNSO which certainly came with its own gravitas. Furthermore as the ICANN Community grows and opens up, we will see cases of people determined to speak about issues they are passionate about which definitely requires the right guidance.
Viewing it from the lenses of a 'techie', it may have been disappointing. From an outreach perspective, it may have positive impact. Looking at the numbers in the recently published ICANN 71 Stats, i can posit that there may have been something useful that attracted such a large participation of Community members in the session. Might we attempt to have an evidence based approach to come up with conclusions on the efficacy of the session?
That said, there are many organizational aspects that can be improved on should there be a repeat of the session in future.
Thank you
Best Regards
On 2021-06-30 21:37, Alejandra Reynoso via Ccnso-council wrote: > 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 <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 <mailto:alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt> > > 18 Ave. 11-95 Zona 15, V.H. III. (A-109) > Guatemala, Guatemala > > www.gt <http://www.gt> [1] > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] http://www.gt/ <http://www.gt/> > _______________________________________________ > Ccnso-council mailing list > Ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council> > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of > your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list > accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy > (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of > Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman > link above to change your membership status or configuration, > including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling > delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Alejandra and all, I follow Barrack's views and think we need to understand better what were ALAC's initial questionmarks, further intentions and objectives. Based on that, it will be easier to elaborate on their interest (one-shot or deeper?) and choose to have a regular relationship with ALAC within the spirit of the multistakeholder model; This approach would serve outreach and other communication objective ccNSO may have with the Icann community as a whole. Kind regards, Marie-Noémie -----Message d'origine----- De : Ccnso-council [mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org] De la part de barrack--- via Ccnso-council Envoyé : jeudi 1 juillet 2021 05:12 À : Alejandra Reynoso <alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt> Cc : ccNSO Council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Objet : Re: [ccnso-council] [Request for Advice] ALAC session at ICANN 71 Good morning Alejandra, Whilst i agree with the general sentiments expressed i would also like to request us to look at the whole issue from different lenses or perspectives. It depicts the 'Communities Understanding' of the ccTLD world. Was it perfect 'No' and understandably so due to the fact that laymen were discussing governance of country code Top Level Domain Registries from their 'lenses' I view this as a great way of outreach despite the fact that it did not meet most of our expectations. It also demonstrates the interest in the work of the ccNSO. The fact that the session was anchored on Katrina's presentation shined a spotlight on the work of the ccNSO which certainly came with its own gravitas. Furthermore as the ICANN Community grows and opens up, we will see cases of people determined to speak about issues they are passionate about which definitely requires the right guidance. Viewing it from the lenses of a 'techie', it may have been disappointing. From an outreach perspective, it may have positive impact. Looking at the numbers in the recently published ICANN 71 Stats, i can posit that there may have been something useful that attracted such a large participation of Community members in the session. Might we attempt to have an evidence based approach to come up with conclusions on the efficacy of the session? That said, there are many organizational aspects that can be improved on should there be a repeat of the session in future. Thank you Best Regards On 2021-06-30 21:37, Alejandra Reynoso via Ccnso-council wrote:
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 [1]
Links: ------ [1] http://www.gt/ _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
Dear Alejandra: I concur with Barrack that we must take a look at the "At-Large Policy Session 2: ccTLD Governance Models - Testimonies From At-Large End Users" through different lenses to grasp a better understanding of what happened and what it means to the end-user. Nonetheless, we cannot ignore the role registrars play in the end-user experience. It is important to be prepared to communicate the correct information about ccTLDs and their governance to avoid misunderstandings and misconceptions; thus, I believe that it could be helpful to take a look at Leonid's slide deck to use it as a starting point to create our own. That way, to borrow from Javier's words, the "ccTLDs/ccNSO should always have a life and a presence outside of its comfort zone...[because] Silos and echo chambers are never good." Consequently, to answer your questions, yes you should write a letter to the ALAC Chair in a spirit of collaboration with the objective to let ALAC know that we are available to provide the correct content information, expert speakers, and coordination to any session involving ccTLDs and the ccNSO. Furthermore, I like to thank all those who have provided their valuable comments. Kind regards, This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 2:38 PM Alejandra Reynoso via Ccnso-council < ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
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
--
[image: Photograph]
*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
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear All This is a kind reminder on this request for advice. I would like to have as much input as possible. Thank you to those who have already replied. Best regards, Alejandra -- [image: Photograph] *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 On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 10:11 AM Pablo Rodriguez <pablo@nic.pr> wrote:
Dear Alejandra: I concur with Barrack that we must take a look at the "At-Large Policy Session 2: ccTLD Governance Models - Testimonies From At-Large End Users" through different lenses to grasp a better understanding of what happened and what it means to the end-user. Nonetheless, we cannot ignore the role registrars play in the end-user experience. It is important to be prepared to communicate the correct information about ccTLDs and their governance to avoid misunderstandings and misconceptions; thus, I believe that it could be helpful to take a look at Leonid's slide deck to use it as a starting point to create our own. That way, to borrow from Javier's words, the "ccTLDs/ccNSO should always have a life and a presence outside of its comfort zone...[because] Silos and echo chambers are never good." Consequently, to answer your questions, yes you should write a letter to the ALAC Chair in a spirit of collaboration with the objective to let ALAC know that we are available to provide the correct content information, expert speakers, and coordination to any session involving ccTLDs and the ccNSO.
Furthermore, I like to thank all those who have provided their valuable comments. Kind regards,
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 2:38 PM Alejandra Reynoso via Ccnso-council < ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
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
--
[image: Photograph]
*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
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
kia ora Alejandra, colleagues, I wonder if a dialogue with the ALAC chair to understand the drivers for the session might help. I still feel a bit out of the blue in this context, in that the session didn't feel so much like a helpful and collaborative one - but I wonder if that is because we weren't in the loop from the beginning. I'd also observe that for ALAC and other global bodies, it is easy to see ccTLDs as a group of similar organisations doing similar things. Whereas I think most of us share the perspective that that is only a part of the story - that each of us are enmeshed in and serve our national communities, not a global one per se, and that that is where our focus is as organisations. So perhaps if that is actually a shared assumption, then it might help explain the "miss" in terms of this session and the ccTLDs... cheers Jordan On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 at 01:38, Alejandra Reynoso via Ccnso-council < ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All
This is a kind reminder on this request for advice. I would like to have as much input as possible.
Thank you to those who have already replied.
Best regards, Alejandra
--
[image: Photograph]
*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
On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 10:11 AM Pablo Rodriguez <pablo@nic.pr> wrote:
Dear Alejandra: I concur with Barrack that we must take a look at the "At-Large Policy Session 2: ccTLD Governance Models - Testimonies From At-Large End Users" through different lenses to grasp a better understanding of what happened and what it means to the end-user. Nonetheless, we cannot ignore the role registrars play in the end-user experience. It is important to be prepared to communicate the correct information about ccTLDs and their governance to avoid misunderstandings and misconceptions; thus, I believe that it could be helpful to take a look at Leonid's slide deck to use it as a starting point to create our own. That way, to borrow from Javier's words, the "ccTLDs/ccNSO should always have a life and a presence outside of its comfort zone...[because] Silos and echo chambers are never good." Consequently, to answer your questions, yes you should write a letter to the ALAC Chair in a spirit of collaboration with the objective to let ALAC know that we are available to provide the correct content information, expert speakers, and coordination to any session involving ccTLDs and the ccNSO.
Furthermore, I like to thank all those who have provided their valuable comments. Kind regards,
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 2:38 PM Alejandra Reynoso via Ccnso-council < ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
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
--
[image: Photograph]
*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
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Alejandra and all I agree with what was suggested before From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alejandra Reynoso via Ccnso-council Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 9:38 PM To: ccNSO Council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] [Request for Advice] ALAC session at ICANN 71 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: <mailto:alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt> alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt 18 Ave. 11-95 Zona 15, V.H. III. (A-109) Guatemala, Guatemala <http://www.gt/> www.gt
Hello, I think that the ALAC chair should be contacted by Alejandra by email. It is a good idea to let them know we are here to explain what is needed and also to gather all the approach we can take of others perspectives. Regards, Jenifer. ________________________________ De: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> en nombre de Alejandra Reynoso via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Enviado: miércoles, 30 de junio de 2021 1:37 p. m. Para: ccNSO Council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Asunto: [ccnso-council] [Request for Advice] ALAC session at ICANN 71 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 -- [Photograph] Alejandra Reynoso Investigación & Desarrollo | Dominios .gt P: +502 23688565 E: alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt<mailto:alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt> 18 Ave. 11-95 Zona 15, V.H. III. (A-109) Guatemala, Guatemala www.gt<http://www.gt/> ***************Este mensaje (y sus adjuntos), en adelante "mensaje", ha sido enviado exclusivamente a su(s) destinatario(s) y es confidencial. Si usted recibe este mensaje por error, por favor bórrelo y comunique inmediatamente al remitente. Toda utilización o publicación, total o parcial, queda prohibida salvo autorización expresa. La UTP no podrá ser considerada responsable si el mensaje ha sido modificado y/o utilizado sin autorización. This message (and any attachments), are confidential intended solely for the people whose addresses appear. If you have received this message by error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender. Any use, dissemination or disclosure, either whole or partial, without formal approval is prohibited. The UTP will not therefore be liable for the message if modified and/or used without approval.************** ***************Este mensaje (y sus adjuntos), en adelante "mensaje", ha sido enviado exclusivamente a su(s) destinatario(s) y es confidencial. Si usted recibe este mensaje por error, por favor bórrelo y comunique inmediatamente al remitente. Toda utilización o publicación, total o parcial, queda prohibida salvo autorización expresa. La UTP no podrá ser considerada responsable si el mensaje ha sido modificado y/o utilizado sin autorización. This message (and any attachments), are confidential intended solely for the people whose addresses appear. If you have received this message by error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender. Any use, dissemination or disclosure, either whole or partial, without formal approval is prohibited. The UTP will not therefore be liable for the message if modified and/or used without approval.**************
Alejandra and All, Regards. I see this from a slightly different lens, I was at that meeting and heard quite a few of the misconceptions and saw the attempts of people who didn't understand how ccTLDs work trying to explain hem, I see this however as an opportunity to educate users from the ALAC on what ccTLDs are about and the fact that as opposed to gTLDs, every ccTLD develops its own policies and operates in relation to the sovereign environment in which it resides. I think this is an opportunity for further engagement and re-engagement until the issues are made fairly clear. My suggestion follows that most people who have responded that we should engage more the ALAC and Alejandra could send an email to the ALAC chair seeking the ccNSO to be involved in sessions that would shed more lights on ccTLD policy thrust and how users can engage. Have a great day. Biyi Oladipo On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 7:38 PM Alejandra Reynoso via Ccnso-council < ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
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
--
[image: Photograph]
*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
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (12)
-
Alejandra Reynoso -
barrack＠aftld.org -
Biyi Oladipo -
Demi Getschko -
Irina Danelia -
Javier Rua -
Jenifer Lopez -
Jordan Carter -
Laura Margolis -
Leonid Todorov -
marienoemie.marques＠orange.com -
Pablo Rodriguez