On 31 Oct 2012 at 12:08, Sabine Dolderer wrote:

Hello Paulos,

...

Von: "Dr Paulos Nyirenda" <paulos@sdnp.org.mw>

...

As has been mentioned elsewhere, whatever input the ccNSO

the question then would be how the "input of the ccNSO" will be defined by whom? Is there a process? Where can I find it?

I am not a lawyer but I can point to Article IX of the ICANN bylaws as one such possible place, which says "The role of the ccNSO Council is to administer and coordinate the affairs of the ccNSO ... " and members of the ccNSO elect members to the council to do such things. So, my expectation is that whoever the ccNSO chooses to act as invited by the gNSO will have the mandate provided by the ccNSO council based on this bylaw.

...

I think it is healthy that the gNSO has called for this ccNSO possible input, cross constituency participation is healthy for ICANN.

The input from different stakeholders might be healthy. To claim that these stakeholders always represent the group they are member of is not the case and should therefore avoided.

Well, great then, my understanding is that the ccNSO here is being considered as one such (important) stakeholder. Regards, Paulos ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw

Sabine

...

Regards,

Paulos ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw

On 31 Oct 2012 at 10:10, Sabine Dolderer wrote:

...

Hello Eberhard,

...

Sabine,

I totally disagree.

There has been cross constituency participation all along and none of the gNSO work is binding on ccNSO or ccTLDs in any way.

as there are existing examples which proofs different and existing irritation at

least in

...

...

the German environment I would argue for much more clarity to avoid further confusion.

To point to the existing examples.

The ICANN IDN-Guidelines are dealing with registration policy on the second level and are foreseen to become binding for registrations in IDN-ccTLDs (outside the scope of the CCNSO but also without any PDP in the CCNSO) and while they are not binding (and not btw implemented) in ASCII-TLDs like .de with currently 650.000 IDN-registrations on the second level.

Change of whois-policy in gTLDs. We saw several publications in the German press about the new whois policy for gTLDs where there at for most journalist it was not clear that they doesn't affect .de and therefore the publications mentioned explicitely the chaneges for .de.

Sabine

...

However perspective often helps.

And, nothing could be further from the desirable than shutting down discussion about something like this on any list.

Gabi,

as I can't post the Council list, please post it there.

el

On 2012-10-30 18:47 , Sabine Dolderer wrote:

...

Hello Gabi,

we received a couple of invitations to gTLD related policy developements during the last couple of weeks "to the ccTLD Community to join a policy wg of the gNSO"and I am not sure what the intended status is or the result can be. From my understanding the ccNSO has no role whatsoever with regard to gTLD policy developement nor it has a mandate to represent the ccTLD Community as a whole. In the consequence - even if we find volunteers - the ccTLD Community cannot join. I would suggest to clarify this to our collegues from the gNSO.

Nevertheless each individual ccTLD Manager can of course choose to participate in gTLD policywork on behalf of their individual organisation but to avoid further misunderstandings I would advice not to use this list for that discussions.

Best Sabine