All, I agree with Mike. Whilst it is correct that the ccNSO has no role in gtld policy development it is also true that we have a proud history of working in a collaborative way with other parts of ICANN and of providing input based on our experience. I understand the fear that involvement could lead to an impression that we approve of a policy and that therefore it can be extended to us but I think the fear is unfounded. I agree that we must remain vigilant and resist any attempts to stretch a gtld policy into the realm of the ccs but that vigilance and resistance should not prevent us from assisting when we are asked, assuming of course, that we have something worthwhile to contribute. Mike has set out a number of reasons why we may be able to help with this issue. Over the years we have, on many occasions, reminded ICANN and its constituent parts that on a number of issues we have experience that can, and perhaps should, be called upon. These include strategic planning, finance, WHOIS and so on. On the issue at hand some of us have experience in creating policy for and managing reserved lists and I take the outreach by the gnso to be an acknowledgment of that. And, just to reiterate, there is absolutely no "discussion" about merging and there is an acute awareness, at least at board level, that the ccs are entirely independent, come to and finance ICANN on an entirely voluntary basis and make their own policy in territory. You can rest assured that even a hint of a change to that view would be immediately communicated to the ccTLD community by me and Mike. I, and I'm sure Mike, will be happy to answer any questions or discuss in further detail. Cheers, Chris On 31 Oct 2012, at 18:07, Mike Silber <mike.silber@icann.org> wrote:

Just FYI (and given my multiple subscriptions I am not sure which list my response went to) I am setting out my response to Oscar's mail below. If you have not seen it - he mentioned: I heard someone during this ICANN meeting calling for the ccNSO/gNSO reunification. I have strong objections to that but I would be willing to discuss it, what I would not like it to happen is to let this decision to the facts, not to the arguments, that's why I support Sabine's position.

Regards

Mike ----------- Before we start buying into conspiracy theories or the notions of a few misguided individuals (which have certainly not made their way to the Board or any other level that I heard), can I suggest there are good reasons for this invitation: politeness; a desire to get knowledgeable and hard-working volunteers to help; there are a number of ccTLD managers that have either applied for new gTLDs or are working with 3rd parties on new TLD applications; and many/most of the IGOs who are seeking additional protections also have local branches / members (like the Red Cross / Red Crescent who have country organisations in most or all countries and the International Olympic Committee with constituent Olympic Committees in every country). So it is possible that the next step after seeking gTLD protection is to look at other TLDs. So can I suggest we not see anything sinister in the invitation and instead participate or not participate as our time, availability and interest allow, or not. There certainly is discussion how the new gTLD program will impact the gNSO structure and they have a review on the horizon. Please believe me - there is not even a hint of a suggestion of a merger with the ccNSO and they will be so busy with their own review they will not have the time to even raise it. Regards Mike

On 31/10/2012 08:52, Gabriella Schittek wrote:

...

Forwarded on behalf of Eberhard Lisse.

From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> Reply-To: "el@lisse.na" <el@lisse.na> Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 12:04 AM To: Sabine Dolderer <dolderer@denic.de> Cc: Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek@icann.org>, "'cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org'" <cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org>, "'ccnso-members@icann.org'" <ccnso-members@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Call for Volunteers: GNSO IGN-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members

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.

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