agenda CWG-UCTN call taking place on Monday, 29 August 2016 at 2100 UTC.
Dear all, Please find below the agenda for the CWG-UCTN call taking place on Monday, 29 August 2016 at 2100 UTC. 14:00 PDT, 17:00 EDT, 22:00 London, 23:00 CEST, (Tuesday) 05:00 Beijing, (Tuesday) 07:00 Sydney for other places see: http://tinyurl.com/hhb37c8 AGENDA 1. Welcome 2. Discussion strawman paper post-Helsinki 3. Next call 4. AOB Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org
Dear working group, Please allow me an attempt to “de-clutter” the current discussion. For those who don’t want to read my monologue; here the essence in a nutshell: gNSO and GAC assume that we are developing policy for the delegation of country names / ISO 3166 III code based new gTLDs. But I think this WG has a complete DIFFERENT focus and works on something much broader – and doesn’t find a solution for that quite narrow defined and specific task: it is not trying to create policy for the delegation of country names / ISO 3166 III code based new gTLDs. No need to read further – the remainder is just a lengthy explanation of the nutshell: Let me go back to the 2012 new gTLD round: Some applicants (among them .berlin) aggressively lobbied ICANN, gNSO and the GAC to allow for geo new gTLDs. Eventually rules to delegate geo-TLDs were established – but the GAC wanted some kind of trade off – some kind of “protected land”; a line in the sand: “Till here and no further”. That line was manifested in the 2012 AGB section “2.2.1.4.1 Treatment of Country or Territory Names”. It was based on a GAC advice! GAC is an important ICANN stakeholder and we should work closely with them – but all it can do is ADVISING. They did – and in order to not delay the new gTLD process even FURTHER the gNSO declared its willingness to exclude these couple of thousand strings from the 2012 round: Country and territory names (and their short forms, and permutations, and transpositions <- google the word), ISO 3166 III code elements and their permutations. I have to admit: I am late to the ccNSO policy development around this issue: Probably because I am not affiliated with a ccTLD and because I just wasn’t even aware that starting already in 2011 the ccNSO tried to establish some policy framework around “the way in which the names of countries and territories are currently used within ICANN, be it in the form of policies, guidelines and/or procedures”. Fast forward to 2016: 99% of the strings submitted in 2012 are resolved (delegated, withdrawn, in delegation, etc.). The next round is projected for about 2020. The ICANN community is engaged in the new PDP process to amend the 2012 AGB. At the gNSO and the GAC meetings in Helsinki the country names / ISO 3166 III issue was always ignored and reference was made to THIS WG! Obviously most stakeholders our there are steadfast convinced that THIS WG is designed or at least enabled to create a policy suggestion for the designation of country names / ISO 3166 III as new gTLDs. And I honestly thought that THAT is the prime task of this WG – and apologize for only having understood yesterday that the prime task is of complete DIFFERENT nature. So here my suggestions: * In order to not further delay the important discussion and work on the task of developing a policy regarding the designation of country names / ISO 3166 III as new gTLDs being executed by the gNSO: let’s simply tell them that we are not necessarily focusing on such solution – and with or without focus are far from any tangible results. * The task of this WG is an important one – and I wish we find a solution: But I honestly see only a lose “overlapping” with the gNSO’s task to amend the 2012 AGB in a way that defines how to apply for these strings. GAC wanted a “line in the sand” – and got it temporarily in 2012. GAC suggested the ccNSO should develop policies starting in 2011 – it’s been 5 years and no policy in sight. I think it is time to let the other stakeholders know that they are waiting for smth that we won’t be able to deliver – and even aren’t really tasked to do so. Again: gNSO and GAC demand clear policy on how country names / ISO 3166 III codes would be delegated as gTLDs. But we aren’t even discussing that point: Neither in Helsinki (where we haven’t even met) nor in the mailing list. I am afraid that by the Hyderabad meeting this WG will simply declare that “no solution was found” – WITHOUT specifying what the “magical solution” tried to: The WG knows that they are discussing some broad “unified approach” of the “general usage” of country names in the ICANN community. But those who are waiting for our results assume that we are actively engaged in policy development to solve the utterly simply problem on how to delegate country names / ISO 3166 III code based gTLDs. So if we say “we couldn’t find a solution” they assume there is no feasible way to delegate these strings. If I am completely mistaken: Please just tell me. Otherwise I think it is time to let all ‘next round new gTLD PDP constituents’ know that they are waiting for a miracle that is just not going to happen. And yes: I understand that there was an expectation that the result of the work of this group could be a valuable input for the gNSO task to find policies how to delegate country based strings – I just don’t see it happening. Not the fault of this group or its participants – just a mismatch of focuses – and wrong expectations of gNSO and GAC. Thanks, Alexander From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joke Braeken Sent: Montag, 29. August 2016 12:20 To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org Cc: 'gnso-secs@icann.org' <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] agenda CWG-UCTN call taking place on Monday, 29 August 2016 at 2100 UTC. Dear all, Please find below the agenda for the CWG-UCTN call taking place on Monday, 29 August 2016 at 2100 UTC. 14:00 PDT, 17:00 EDT, 22:00 London, 23:00 CEST, (Tuesday) 05:00 Beijing, (Tuesday) 07:00 Sydney for other places see: <http://tinyurl.com/hhb37c8> http://tinyurl.com/hhb37c8 AGENDA 1. Welcome 2. Discussion strawman paper post-Helsinki 3. Next call 4. AOB Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> joke.braeken@icann.org Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: <https://twitter.com/ccNSO> https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: <https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/> https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ <http://ccnso.icann.org> http://ccnso.icann.org
Dear Alexander, my apologies for missing last nights call (jet Lag) My personal reaction to your concise nutshell: the GNSO is “NOT” assuming that this CWG with the ccNSO is producing “policy”. You can bet on that! We may be looking for a general framework to be considered for formal policy process (and not finding it). Should I read the whole document? Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 30 Aug 2016, at 14:09, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear working group,
Please allow me an attempt to “de-clutter” the current discussion. For those who don’t want to read my monologue; here the essence in a nutshell:
gNSO and GAC assume that we are developing policy for the delegation of country names / ISO 3166 III code based new gTLDs. But I think this WG has a complete DIFFERENT focus and works on something much broader – and doesn’t find a solution for that quite narrow defined and specific task: it is not trying to create policy for the delegation of country names / ISO 3166 III code based new gTLDs.
No need to read further – the remainder is just a lengthy explanation of the nutshell:
Let me go back to the 2012 new gTLD round: Some applicants (among them .berlin) aggressively lobbied ICANN, gNSO and the GAC to allow for geo new gTLDs. Eventually rules to delegate geo-TLDs were established – but the GAC wanted some kind of trade off – some kind of “protected land”; a line in the sand: “Till here and no further”.
That line was manifested in the 2012 AGB section “2.2.1.4.1 Treatment of Country or Territory Names”. It was based on a GAC advice! GAC is an important ICANN stakeholder and we should work closely with them – but all it can do is ADVISING. They did – and in order to not delay the new gTLD process even FURTHER the gNSO declared its willingness to exclude these couple of thousand strings from the 2012 round: Country and territory names (and their short forms, and permutations, and transpositions <- google the word), ISO 3166 III code elements and their permutations.
I have to admit: I am late to the ccNSO policy development around this issue: Probably because I am not affiliated with a ccTLD and because I just wasn’t even aware that starting already in 2011 the ccNSO tried to establish some policy framework around “the way in which the names of countries and territories are currently used within ICANN, be it in the form of policies, guidelines and/or procedures”.
Fast forward to 2016:
99% of the strings submitted in 2012 are resolved (delegated, withdrawn, in delegation, etc.). The next round is projected for about 2020. The ICANN community is engaged in the new PDP process to amend the 2012 AGB. At the gNSO and the GAC meetings in Helsinki the country names / ISO 3166 III issue was always ignored and reference was made to THIS WG! Obviously most stakeholders our there are steadfast convinced that THIS WG is designed or at least enabled to create a policy suggestion for the designation of country names / ISO 3166 III as new gTLDs. And I honestly thought that THAT is the prime task of this WG – and apologize for only having understood yesterday that the prime task is of complete DIFFERENT nature.
So here my suggestions:
* In order to not further delay the important discussion and work on the task of developing a policy regarding the designation of country names / ISO 3166 III as new gTLDs being executed by the gNSO: let’s simply tell them that we are not necessarily focusing on such solution – and with or without focus are far from any tangible results.
* The task of this WG is an important one – and I wish we find a solution: But I honestly see only a lose “overlapping” with the gNSO’s task to amend the 2012 AGB in a way that defines how to apply for these strings.
GAC wanted a “line in the sand” – and got it temporarily in 2012. GAC suggested the ccNSO should develop policies starting in 2011 – it’s been 5 years and no policy in sight. I think it is time to let the other stakeholders know that they are waiting for smth that we won’t be able to deliver – and even aren’t really tasked to do so.
Again: gNSO and GAC demand clear policy on how country names / ISO 3166 III codes would be delegated as gTLDs. But we aren’t even discussing that point: Neither in Helsinki (where we haven’t even met) nor in the mailing list.
I am afraid that by the Hyderabad meeting this WG will simply declare that “no solution was found” – WITHOUT specifying what the “magical solution” tried to: The WG knows that they are discussing some broad “unified approach” of the “general usage” of country names in the ICANN community. But those who are waiting for our results assume that we are actively engaged in policy development to solve the utterly simply problem on how to delegate country names / ISO 3166 III code based gTLDs. So if we say “we couldn’t find a solution” they assume there is no feasible way to delegate these strings.
If I am completely mistaken: Please just tell me. Otherwise I think it is time to let all ‘next round new gTLD PDP constituents’ know that they are waiting for a miracle that is just not going to happen. And yes: I understand that there was an expectation that the result of the work of this group could be a valuable input for the gNSO task to find policies how to delegate country based strings – I just don’t see it happening. Not the fault of this group or its participants – just a mismatch of focuses – and wrong expectations of gNSO and GAC.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joke Braeken Sent: Montag, 29. August 2016 12:20 To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org Cc: 'gnso-secs@icann.org' <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] agenda CWG-UCTN call taking place on Monday, 29 August 2016 at 2100 UTC.
Dear all,
Please find below the agenda for the CWG-UCTN call taking place on Monday, 29 August 2016 at 2100 UTC.
14:00 PDT, 17:00 EDT, 22:00 London, 23:00 CEST, (Tuesday) 05:00 Beijing, (Tuesday) 07:00 Sydney
for other places see: <http://tinyurl.com/hhb37c8> http://tinyurl.com/hhb37c8
AGENDA
1. Welcome
2. Discussion strawman paper post-Helsinki
3. Next call
4. AOB
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> joke.braeken@icann.org
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: <https://twitter.com/ccNSO> https://twitter.com/ccNSO
Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: <https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/> https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/
<http://ccnso.icann.org> http://ccnso.icann.org
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
participants (3)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. -
Joke Braeken