+1 Regards, Vika Mpisane | Tel: +27 11 314 0077 On 2012/10/31 1:16 PM, "Annebeth Lange" <annebeth.lange@uninett.no> wrote:

I agree.

I actually think that one of the reasons why it took so long time to finish the Applicant Guidebook in the new gTLD process was that ccNSO - or the GAC for that matter - were not invited in from the beginning. Here we have an opportunity to make heard our view on important issues. That does not, in my view, mean that it will become binding on the ccTLDs. But it is healthy that all views are heard at an early stage in all WGs - whether they are a ccNSO WG or a gNSO WG.

There might, of course, as Sabine writes, be that people outside our multistakeholder environment will misunderstand. But this is another issue, that should be handled aside from participation.

Kind regards, Annebeth

Annebeth B. Lange Head of Legal and Policy UNINETT Norid AS P.O. Box 6878 St. Olavs plass NO-0130 Oslo +47 959 11 559

On 31.10.2012 11:19, Dr Paulos Nyirenda wrote:

...

I do not agree with the original request from .de and I do not think the follow-up argument is any good either.

I think the cross constituency participation request from the gNSO is very welcome and the ccNSO should participate as it sees fit. Just as .de indicates, each ccTLD, like .de, can join to voice their views at this phase of the process or in any later call for comments. But it seems weird to bar the ccNSO from participating in the process.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, whatever input the ccNSO will give in this process does not necessarily become binding on the ccTLDs or the (resulting) gTLDs.

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

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