post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear All, Following the events at ICANN56 in Helsinki, staff drafted a strawman paper, as requested by the CWG-UCTN co-chairs. The attached paper lays out the Group’s discussion to-date, and provides the working group’s conclusions and recommendations in relation to the Group’s main objective. This document aims at generating a discussion among the group, regarding the next steps, taking into account that the main objective of the WG is to provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that is applicable across the respective SO's and AC's defining rules guiding the use of country and territory names as top-level domains that, ideally, can be applied objectively to alpha-2 and alpha-3 ISO 3166-1 codes as well as full country and territory names. Next meetings: 1. Monday 22 August, 21 UTC. CANCELLED. The co-chairs preferred to allow WG members sufficient time to review the post-Helsinki strawman paper, and to comment on it 2. Monday 29 August, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow. On the agenda: discussion of the post-Helsinki strawman paper 3. Monday 19 September, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow 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 all, A short reminder that the next call for the CWG-UCTN WG is scheduled for next week Monday 29 August, at 21 UTC. You are kindly invited to provide us with your input, comments and feedback on the attached strawman paper by the end of this week. Thank you! 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 From: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> Date: Friday 19 August 2016 at 11:57 To: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org" <ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear All, Following the events at ICANN56 in Helsinki, staff drafted a strawman paper, as requested by the CWG-UCTN co-chairs. The attached paper lays out the Group’s discussion to-date, and provides the working group’s conclusions and recommendations in relation to the Group’s main objective. This document aims at generating a discussion among the group, regarding the next steps, taking into account that the main objective of the WG is to provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that is applicable across the respective SO's and AC's defining rules guiding the use of country and territory names as top-level domains that, ideally, can be applied objectively to alpha-2 and alpha-3 ISO 3166-1 codes as well as full country and territory names. Next meetings: 1. Monday 22 August, 21 UTC. CANCELLED. The co-chairs preferred to allow WG members sufficient time to review the post-Helsinki strawman paper, and to comment on it 2. Monday 29 August, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow. On the agenda: discussion of the post-Helsinki strawman paper 3. Monday 19 September, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow 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 Joke, CWG colleagues, Tremendous thanks to Joke for her work on producing the first draft of our status report and recommendations, particularly while Steve Chan recovered on medical leave and Emily Barabas transitioned in temporarily as GNSO support staff. In my view this paper is a good start, and there is a bit more we can do. It is important that we keep this document relatively short, clear and to the point - otherwise we risk losing the community's attention. With this in mind, I propose that we add footnotes and names of earlier documents, groups, etc. to ensure the community has the complete picture of the work in this area (as indeed this is one of our key justifications for terminating our efforts - the multiplicity of policy initiatives on geo names) while streamlining this progress report by pushing the reader to those other documents for more detail/substance. I also suggest that we amend references to ISO 3166 from "list" to "standard", as that is a lesson we've very helpfully learned from Jaap. Finally, I believe we should be more clear and direct on our recommendations at the end, as ultimately we're in the best position to advise as to what should happen next and, crucially, what is needed for that to succeed (ie, we know best what our deficiencies were as a CWG, and have a view as to how to fix them). I look forward to our meeting next week and the opportunity to discuss this progress report in more detail. Best wishes, Heather ________________________________ From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 21:39 To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear all, A short reminder that the next call for the CWG-UCTN WG is scheduled for next week Monday 29 August, at 21 UTC. You are kindly invited to provide us with your input, comments and feedback on the attached strawman paper by the end of this week. Thank you! 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 From: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> Date: Friday 19 August 2016 at 11:57 To: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org" <ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear All, Following the events at ICANN56 in Helsinki, staff drafted a strawman paper, as requested by the CWG-UCTN co-chairs. The attached paper lays out the Group's discussion to-date, and provides the working group's conclusions and recommendations in relation to the Group's main objective. This document aims at generating a discussion among the group, regarding the next steps, taking into account that the main objective of the WG is to provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that is applicable across the respective SO's and AC's defining rules guiding the use of country and territory names as top-level domains that, ideally, can be applied objectively to alpha-2 and alpha-3 ISO 3166-1 codes as well as full country and territory names. Next meetings: 1. Monday 22 August, 21 UTC. CANCELLED. The co-chairs preferred to allow WG members sufficient time to review the post-Helsinki strawman paper, and to comment on it 2. Monday 29 August, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow. On the agenda: discussion of the post-Helsinki strawman paper 3. Monday 19 September, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow 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 Joke, dear Heather, CWG colleagues, I join Heather in thanking Joke for her excellent work in producing this draft for a progress report. I have gone through it with special attention to your comments and input, Heather, and enclose a version with my questions and comments. I encourage my fellow colleagues to read the document and give input. We have to decide how to go forward with this, and it would be great to have opinions and suggestions from WG members. Kind regards, Annebeth From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Heather Forrest Date: Wednesday 24 August 2016 at 04:40 To: Joke Braeken, "ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear Joke, CWG colleagues, Tremendous thanks to Joke for her work on producing the first draft of our status report and recommendations, particularly while Steve Chan recovered on medical leave and Emily Barabas transitioned in temporarily as GNSO support staff. In my view this paper is a good start, and there is a bit more we can do. It is important that we keep this document relatively short, clear and to the point - otherwise we risk losing the community's attention. With this in mind, I propose that we add footnotes and names of earlier documents, groups, etc. to ensure the community has the complete picture of the work in this area (as indeed this is one of our key justifications for terminating our efforts - the multiplicity of policy initiatives on geo names) while streamlining this progress report by pushing the reader to those other documents for more detail/substance. I also suggest that we amend references to ISO 3166 from "list" to "standard", as that is a lesson we've very helpfully learned from Jaap. Finally, I believe we should be more clear and direct on our recommendations at the end, as ultimately we're in the best position to advise as to what should happen next and, crucially, what is needed for that to succeed (ie, we know best what our deficiencies were as a CWG, and have a view as to how to fix them). I look forward to our meeting next week and the opportunity to discuss this progress report in more detail. Best wishes, Heather ________________________________ From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 21:39 To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear all, A short reminder that the next call for the CWG-UCTN WG is scheduled for next week Monday 29 August, at 21 UTC. You are kindly invited to provide us with your input, comments and feedback on the attached strawman paper by the end of this week. Thank you! 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 From: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>> Date: Friday 19 August 2016 at 11:57 To: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>" <ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>> Subject: post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear All, Following the events at ICANN56 in Helsinki, staff drafted a strawman paper, as requested by the CWG-UCTN co-chairs. The attached paper lays out the Group’s discussion to-date, and provides the working group’s conclusions and recommendations in relation to the Group’s main objective. This document aims at generating a discussion among the group, regarding the next steps, taking into account that the main objective of the WG is to provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that is applicable across the respective SO's and AC's defining rules guiding the use of country and territory names as top-level domains that, ideally, can be applied objectively to alpha-2 and alpha-3 ISO 3166-1 codes as well as full country and territory names. Next meetings: 1. Monday 22 August, 21 UTC.CANCELLED. The co-chairs preferred to allow WG members sufficient time to review the post-Helsinki strawman paper, and to comment on it 2. Monday 29 August, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow. On the agenda: discussion of the post-Helsinki strawman paper 3. Monday 19 September, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow 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
I would like to add my thanks to Joke for her excellent draft progress report. Thanks also to Heather and Annebeth for their comments and suggestions – here are a couple from me. Regarding the recommendations section I note that in Annebeth’s version, which I worked from as I thought it was the latest, some of the recommendations Heather proposed were not included. In full, those recommendations are: In light of the need for further work, the complexity of the issue at hand, the aforementioned inconsistencies between various ICANN policies, and the limited mandate of the CWG on the use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs, the CWG recommends that: 1) The ICANN community consolidate all policy efforts relating to geographic names (as that term has traditionally very broadly been defined in the ICANN environment to this point) to enable in-depth analyses and discussions on all aspects related to all geographic-related names at all levels of the DNS. This is the only way, in our view, to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable. 2) Future work should take place with the authority of a policy development process under ICANN’s Bylaws, with a clearly drafted Charter or scope of works that sets out how conclusions and recommendations will inform that policy development process. This addresses a key deficiency of this CWG, as it has not been made clear how the group’s work can or will be incorporated in policy-making pursuant to ICANN’s Bylaws. In this regard, we note that the use of geographic names in future new gTLDs falls within the scope of issues to be addressed by the now-formed and operative GNSO PDP on Subsequent Procedures. 3) Future policy development work must facilitate all-inclusive dialogue to ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity to participate. Again, we believe that this is the only way to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable. I am strongly in favour of including these recommendations. If we are to recommend that all policy work on geographic terms be consolidated to ensure harmonisation (which I agree that it should) then I think we must also address the question of where that consolidation should happen and make our recommendation. The PDP has a formalised status under the ICANN Bylaws and a clear process. The treatment of the outcomes of the PDP by the Board are also clearly set out, with a process of consultation to be followed where the Board determines that the recommendations “are not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN”. In addition, as Heather has pointed out, the issue of geo names in future “rounds” of New gTLDs also already within the Charter of the Subsequent Procedures PDP which has a large number of participants (133) and is not limited to the GNSO but includes members of the ALAC, GAC and unaffiliated individuals. I believe members of the ccNSO also already participate (even if not identified as such on the list of participants), since many ccTLD operators also have an interest in new gTLDs. The PDP work has been underway for some months considering overarching issues, and the working group is now breaking into work tracks to focus on specific groupings of related issues. Country and territory names fall within the Legal/Regulatory work track and would sensibly be dealt with by that work track when it considers other, related, issues around the reservation of names, including other geographic names which are not within the scope of this CWG, and names with other sensitivity (which are not geo names). thanks Susan Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 Valideus August Public Holiday Opening Hours The Valideus offices will be closed for a UK public holiday on Monday 29th August, reopening on Tuesday 30th August 2016. From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange Sent: 24 August 2016 08:24 To: Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear Joke, dear Heather, CWG colleagues, I join Heather in thanking Joke for her excellent work in producing this draft for a progress report. I have gone through it with special attention to your comments and input, Heather, and enclose a version with my questions and comments. I encourage my fellow colleagues to read the document and give input. We have to decide how to go forward with this, and it would be great to have opinions and suggestions from WG members. Kind regards, Annebeth From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Heather Forrest Date: Wednesday 24 August 2016 at 04:40 To: Joke Braeken, "ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear Joke, CWG colleagues, Tremendous thanks to Joke for her work on producing the first draft of our status report and recommendations, particularly while Steve Chan recovered on medical leave and Emily Barabas transitioned in temporarily as GNSO support staff. In my view this paper is a good start, and there is a bit more we can do. It is important that we keep this document relatively short, clear and to the point - otherwise we risk losing the community's attention. With this in mind, I propose that we add footnotes and names of earlier documents, groups, etc. to ensure the community has the complete picture of the work in this area (as indeed this is one of our key justifications for terminating our efforts - the multiplicity of policy initiatives on geo names) while streamlining this progress report by pushing the reader to those other documents for more detail/substance. I also suggest that we amend references to ISO 3166 from "list" to "standard", as that is a lesson we've very helpfully learned from Jaap. Finally, I believe we should be more clear and direct on our recommendations at the end, as ultimately we're in the best position to advise as to what should happen next and, crucially, what is needed for that to succeed (ie, we know best what our deficiencies were as a CWG, and have a view as to how to fix them). I look forward to our meeting next week and the opportunity to discuss this progress report in more detail. Best wishes, Heather ________________________________ From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 21:39 To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear all, A short reminder that the next call for the CWG-UCTN WG is scheduled for next week Monday 29 August, at 21 UTC. You are kindly invited to provide us with your input, comments and feedback on the attached strawman paper by the end of this week. Thank you! 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 From: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>> Date: Friday 19 August 2016 at 11:57 To: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>" <ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>> Subject: post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear All, Following the events at ICANN56 in Helsinki, staff drafted a strawman paper, as requested by the CWG-UCTN co-chairs. The attached paper lays out the Group’s discussion to-date, and provides the working group’s conclusions and recommendations in relation to the Group’s main objective. This document aims at generating a discussion among the group, regarding the next steps, taking into account that the main objective of the WG is to provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that is applicable across the respective SO's and AC's defining rules guiding the use of country and territory names as top-level domains that, ideally, can be applied objectively to alpha-2 and alpha-3 ISO 3166-1 codes as well as full country and territory names. Next meetings: 1. Monday 22 August, 21 UTC.CANCELLED. The co-chairs preferred to allow WG members sufficient time to review the post-Helsinki strawman paper, and to comment on it 2. Monday 29 August, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow. On the agenda: discussion of the post-Helsinki strawman paper 3. Monday 19 September, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow 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
Hi, First of all thank you all for accepting me to this CWG - this has been my first experience with such processes. It has been educational. Anyhow, I would like to express my strong disagreement with the recommendation to even mention GNSO PDP as a viable solution to move forward with these issues. In my view this can be solved only in the balanced cross community workgroup with representatives from all the necessary groups (ccnso, gnso, gac etc). WIth that said I am very sad that this CWG was not able to achieve more. We are still talking about country names and codes here so for me it seems the worst idea possible to give the power of decision over these strings to group with solely commercial goals in mind. Please do not do that! Let's specifiy what was lacking with this CWG and propose to form new one. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
I would like to add my thanks to Joke for her excellent draft progress report. Thanks also to Heather and Annebeth for their comments and suggestions – here are a couple from me.
Regarding the recommendations section I note that in Annebeth’s version, which I worked from as I thought it was the latest, some of the recommendations Heather proposed were not included. In full, those recommendations are:
In light of the need for further work, the complexity of the issue at hand, the aforementioned inconsistencies between various ICANN policies, and the limited mandate of the CWG on the use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs, the CWG recommends that:
1) The ICANN community consolidate all policy efforts relating to geographic names (as that term has traditionally very broadly been defined in the ICANN environment to this point) to enable in-depth analyses and discussions on all aspects related to all geographic-related names at all levels of the DNS. This is the only way, in our view, to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable.
2) Future work should take place with the authority of a policy development process under ICANN’s Bylaws, with a clearly drafted Charter or scope of works that sets out how conclusions and recommendations will inform that policy development process. This addresses a key deficiency of this CWG, as it has not been made clear how the group’s work can or will be incorporated in policy-making pursuant to ICANN’s Bylaws. In this regard, we note that the use of geographic names in future new gTLDs falls within the scope of issues to be addressed by the now-formed and operative GNSO PDP on Subsequent Procedures.
3) Future policy development work must facilitate all-inclusive dialogue to ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity to participate. Again, we believe that this is the only way to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable.
I am strongly in favour of including these recommendations. If we are to recommend that all policy work on geographic terms be consolidated to ensure harmonisation (which I agree that it should) then I think we must also address the question of where that consolidation should happen and make our recommendation. The PDP has a formalised status under the ICANN Bylaws and a clear process. The treatment of the outcomes of the PDP by the Board are also clearly set out, with a process of consultation to be followed where the Board determines that the recommendations “are not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN”.
In addition, as Heather has pointed out, the issue of geo names in future “rounds” of New gTLDs also already within the Charter of the Subsequent Procedures PDP which has a large number of participants (133) and is not limited to the GNSO but includes members of the ALAC, GAC and unaffiliated individuals. I believe members of the ccNSO also already participate (even if not identified as such on the list of participants), since many ccTLD operators also have an interest in new gTLDs. The PDP work has been underway for some months considering overarching issues, and the working group is now breaking into work tracks to focus on specific groupings of related issues. Country and territory names fall within the Legal/Regulatory work track and would sensibly be dealt with by that work track when it considers other, related, issues around the reservation of names, including *other* geographic names which are not within the scope of this CWG, and names with other sensitivity (which are not geo names).
thanks
Susan
*Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy* | *Valideus Ltd * E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
*Valideus August Public Holiday Opening Hours*
The Valideus offices will be closed for a UK public holiday on Monday 29th August, reopening on Tuesday 30th August 2016.
*From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@ icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Annebeth Lange *Sent:* 24 August 2016 08:24 *To:* Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear Joke, dear Heather, CWG colleagues,
I join Heather in thanking Joke for her excellent work in producing this draft for a progress report. I have gone through it with special attention to your comments and input, Heather, and enclose a version with my questions and comments.
I encourage my fellow colleagues to read the document and give input. We have to decide how to go forward with this, and it would be great to have opinions and suggestions from WG members.
Kind regards,
Annebeth
*From: *<ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Heather Forrest *Date: *Wednesday 24 August 2016 at 04:40 *To: *Joke Braeken, "ctn-crosscom@icann.org" *Subject: *Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear Joke, CWG colleagues,
Tremendous thanks to Joke for her work on producing the first draft of our status report and recommendations, particularly while Steve Chan recovered on medical leave and Emily Barabas transitioned in temporarily as GNSO support staff.
In my view this paper is a good start, and there is a bit more we can do. It is important that we keep this document relatively short, clear and to the point - otherwise we risk losing the community's attention. With this in mind, I propose that we add footnotes and names of earlier documents, groups, etc. to ensure the community has the complete picture of the work in this area (as indeed this is one of our key justifications for terminating our efforts - the multiplicity of policy initiatives on geo names) while streamlining this progress report by pushing the reader to those other documents for more detail/substance.
I also suggest that we amend references to ISO 3166 from "list" to "standard", as that is a lesson we've very helpfully learned from Jaap.
Finally, I believe we should be more clear and direct on our recommendations at the end, as ultimately we're in the best position to advise as to what should happen next and, crucially, what is needed for that to succeed (ie, we know best what our deficiencies were as a CWG, and have a view as to how to fix them).
I look forward to our meeting next week and the opportunity to discuss this progress report in more detail.
Best wishes,
Heather
------------------------------
*From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 23, 2016 21:39 *To:* ctn-crosscom@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear all,
A short reminder that the next call for the CWG-UCTN WG is scheduled for next week Monday 29 August, at 21 UTC.
You are kindly invited to provide us with your input, comments and feedback on the attached strawman paper by the end of this week.
Thank you!
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO
Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/
*From: *Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> *Date: *Friday 19 August 2016 at 11:57 *To: *"ctn-crosscom@icann.org" <ctn-crosscom@icann.org> *Subject: *post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear All,
Following the events at ICANN56 in Helsinki, staff drafted a strawman paper, as requested by the CWG-UCTN co-chairs. The attached paper
lays out the Group’s discussion to-date, and provides the working group’s conclusions and recommendations in relation to the Group’s main objective.
This document aims at generating a discussion among the group, regarding the next steps, taking into account that the main objective of the WG is to provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that is applicable across the respective SO's and AC's defining rules guiding the use of country and territory names as top-level domains that, ideally, can be applied objectively to alpha-2 and alpha-3 ISO 3166-1 codes as well as full country and territory names.
*Next meetings:*
1. *Monday 22 August, 21 UTC.*CANCELLED.
The co-chairs preferred to allow WG members sufficient time to review the post-Helsinki strawman paper, and to comment on it
2. *Monday 29 August, 21 UTC.* A calendar invite will follow. On the agenda: discussion of the post-Helsinki strawman paper
3. *Monday 19 September, 21 UTC.* A calendar invite will follow
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO
Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Hi Timo Could you explain please who and what you mean by “give the power of decision over these strings to group with solely commercial goals in mind”? From the context it seems you refer to the GNSO, so I would like to be sure if I understand you correctly. thanks Susan From: Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee] Sent: 26 August 2016 13:04 To: Susan Payne Cc: Annebeth Lange; Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Hi, First of all thank you all for accepting me to this CWG - this has been my first experience with such processes. It has been educational. Anyhow, I would like to express my strong disagreement with the recommendation to even mention GNSO PDP as a viable solution to move forward with these issues. In my view this can be solved only in the balanced cross community workgroup with representatives from all the necessary groups (ccnso, gnso, gac etc). WIth that said I am very sad that this CWG was not able to achieve more. We are still talking about country names and codes here so for me it seems the worst idea possible to give the power of decision over these strings to group with solely commercial goals in mind. Please do not do that! Let's specifiy what was lacking with this CWG and propose to form new one. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee<http://www.internet.ee> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> wrote: I would like to add my thanks to Joke for her excellent draft progress report. Thanks also to Heather and Annebeth for their comments and suggestions – here are a couple from me. Regarding the recommendations section I note that in Annebeth’s version, which I worked from as I thought it was the latest, some of the recommendations Heather proposed were not included. In full, those recommendations are: In light of the need for further work, the complexity of the issue at hand, the aforementioned inconsistencies between various ICANN policies, and the limited mandate of the CWG on the use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs, the CWG recommends that: 1) The ICANN community consolidate all policy efforts relating to geographic names (as that term has traditionally very broadly been defined in the ICANN environment to this point) to enable in-depth analyses and discussions on all aspects related to all geographic-related names at all levels of the DNS. This is the only way, in our view, to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable. 2) Future work should take place with the authority of a policy development process under ICANN’s Bylaws, with a clearly drafted Charter or scope of works that sets out how conclusions and recommendations will inform that policy development process. This addresses a key deficiency of this CWG, as it has not been made clear how the group’s work can or will be incorporated in policy-making pursuant to ICANN’s Bylaws. In this regard, we note that the use of geographic names in future new gTLDs falls within the scope of issues to be addressed by the now-formed and operative GNSO PDP on Subsequent Procedures. 3) Future policy development work must facilitate all-inclusive dialogue to ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity to participate. Again, we believe that this is the only way to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable. I am strongly in favour of including these recommendations. If we are to recommend that all policy work on geographic terms be consolidated to ensure harmonisation (which I agree that it should) then I think we must also address the question of where that consolidation should happen and make our recommendation. The PDP has a formalised status under the ICANN Bylaws and a clear process. The treatment of the outcomes of the PDP by the Board are also clearly set out, with a process of consultation to be followed where the Board determines that the recommendations “are not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN”. In addition, as Heather has pointed out, the issue of geo names in future “rounds” of New gTLDs also already within the Charter of the Subsequent Procedures PDP which has a large number of participants (133) and is not limited to the GNSO but includes members of the ALAC, GAC and unaffiliated individuals. I believe members of the ccNSO also already participate (even if not identified as such on the list of participants), since many ccTLD operators also have an interest in new gTLDs. The PDP work has been underway for some months considering overarching issues, and the working group is now breaking into work tracks to focus on specific groupings of related issues. Country and territory names fall within the Legal/Regulatory work track and would sensibly be dealt with by that work track when it considers other, related, issues around the reservation of names, including other geographic names which are not within the scope of this CWG, and names with other sensitivity (which are not geo names). thanks Susan Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255<tel:%2B44%2020%207421%208255> T: +44 20 7421 8299<tel:%2B44%2020%207421%208299> M: +44 7971 661175<tel:%2B44%207971%20661175> Valideus August Public Holiday Opening Hours The Valideus offices will be closed for a UK public holiday on Monday 29th August, reopening on Tuesday 30th August 2016. From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange Sent: 24 August 2016 08:24 To: Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear Joke, dear Heather, CWG colleagues, I join Heather in thanking Joke for her excellent work in producing this draft for a progress report. I have gone through it with special attention to your comments and input, Heather, and enclose a version with my questions and comments. I encourage my fellow colleagues to read the document and give input. We have to decide how to go forward with this, and it would be great to have opinions and suggestions from WG members. Kind regards, Annebeth From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Heather Forrest Date: Wednesday 24 August 2016 at 04:40 To: Joke Braeken, "ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear Joke, CWG colleagues, Tremendous thanks to Joke for her work on producing the first draft of our status report and recommendations, particularly while Steve Chan recovered on medical leave and Emily Barabas transitioned in temporarily as GNSO support staff. In my view this paper is a good start, and there is a bit more we can do. It is important that we keep this document relatively short, clear and to the point - otherwise we risk losing the community's attention. With this in mind, I propose that we add footnotes and names of earlier documents, groups, etc. to ensure the community has the complete picture of the work in this area (as indeed this is one of our key justifications for terminating our efforts - the multiplicity of policy initiatives on geo names) while streamlining this progress report by pushing the reader to those other documents for more detail/substance. I also suggest that we amend references to ISO 3166 from "list" to "standard", as that is a lesson we've very helpfully learned from Jaap. Finally, I believe we should be more clear and direct on our recommendations at the end, as ultimately we're in the best position to advise as to what should happen next and, crucially, what is needed for that to succeed (ie, we know best what our deficiencies were as a CWG, and have a view as to how to fix them). I look forward to our meeting next week and the opportunity to discuss this progress report in more detail. Best wishes, Heather ________________________________ From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 21:39 To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear all, A short reminder that the next call for the CWG-UCTN WG is scheduled for next week Monday 29 August, at 21 UTC. You are kindly invited to provide us with your input, comments and feedback on the attached strawman paper by the end of this week. Thank you! 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 From: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>> Date: Friday 19 August 2016 at 11:57 To: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>" <ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>> Subject: post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear All, Following the events at ICANN56 in Helsinki, staff drafted a strawman paper, as requested by the CWG-UCTN co-chairs. The attached paper lays out the Group’s discussion to-date, and provides the working group’s conclusions and recommendations in relation to the Group’s main objective. This document aims at generating a discussion among the group, regarding the next steps, taking into account that the main objective of the WG is to provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that is applicable across the respective SO's and AC's defining rules guiding the use of country and territory names as top-level domains that, ideally, can be applied objectively to alpha-2 and alpha-3 ISO 3166-1 codes as well as full country and territory names. Next meetings: 1. Monday 22 August, 21 UTC.CANCELLED. The co-chairs preferred to allow WG members sufficient time to review the post-Helsinki strawman paper, and to comment on it 2. Monday 29 August, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow. On the agenda: discussion of the post-Helsinki strawman paper 3. Monday 19 September, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow 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 _______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Hi Susan Yes I referred to gNSO with this statement as gTLDs are mostly run for profit and ccTLDs by non-profits with other ideals in mind. Of course there are exceptions to this rule on both sides. Balanced CWG is the way forward. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
Hi Timo
Could you explain please who and what you mean by “give the power of decision over these strings to group with solely commercial goals in mind”? From the context it seems you refer to the GNSO, so I would like to be sure if I understand you correctly.
thanks
Susan
*From:* Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee] *Sent:* 26 August 2016 13:04 *To:* Susan Payne *Cc:* Annebeth Lange; Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Hi,
First of all thank you all for accepting me to this CWG - this has been my first experience with such processes. It has been educational.
Anyhow, I would like to express my strong disagreement with the recommendation to even mention GNSO PDP as a viable solution to move forward with these issues. In my view this can be solved only in the balanced cross community workgroup with representatives from all the necessary groups (ccnso, gnso, gac etc). WIth that said I am very sad that this CWG was not able to achieve more. We are still talking about country names and codes here so for me it seems the worst idea possible to give the power of decision over these strings to group with solely commercial goals in mind. Please do not do that!
Let's specifiy what was lacking with this CWG and propose to form new one.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar
Head of development
Estonian Internet Foundation
www.internet.ee
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
I would like to add my thanks to Joke for her excellent draft progress report. Thanks also to Heather and Annebeth for their comments and suggestions – here are a couple from me.
Regarding the recommendations section I note that in Annebeth’s version, which I worked from as I thought it was the latest, some of the recommendations Heather proposed were not included. In full, those recommendations are:
In light of the need for further work, the complexity of the issue at hand, the aforementioned inconsistencies between various ICANN policies, and the limited mandate of the CWG on the use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs, the CWG recommends that:
1) The ICANN community consolidate all policy efforts relating to geographic names (as that term has traditionally very broadly been defined in the ICANN environment to this point) to enable in-depth analyses and discussions on all aspects related to all geographic-related names at all levels of the DNS. This is the only way, in our view, to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable.
2) Future work should take place with the authority of a policy development process under ICANN’s Bylaws, with a clearly drafted Charter or scope of works that sets out how conclusions and recommendations will inform that policy development process. This addresses a key deficiency of this CWG, as it has not been made clear how the group’s work can or will be incorporated in policy-making pursuant to ICANN’s Bylaws. In this regard, we note that the use of geographic names in future new gTLDs falls within the scope of issues to be addressed by the now-formed and operative GNSO PDP on Subsequent Procedures.
3) Future policy development work must facilitate all-inclusive dialogue to ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity to participate. Again, we believe that this is the only way to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable.
I am strongly in favour of including these recommendations. If we are to recommend that all policy work on geographic terms be consolidated to ensure harmonisation (which I agree that it should) then I think we must also address the question of where that consolidation should happen and make our recommendation. The PDP has a formalised status under the ICANN Bylaws and a clear process. The treatment of the outcomes of the PDP by the Board are also clearly set out, with a process of consultation to be followed where the Board determines that the recommendations “are not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN”.
In addition, as Heather has pointed out, the issue of geo names in future “rounds” of New gTLDs also already within the Charter of the Subsequent Procedures PDP which has a large number of participants (133) and is not limited to the GNSO but includes members of the ALAC, GAC and unaffiliated individuals. I believe members of the ccNSO also already participate (even if not identified as such on the list of participants), since many ccTLD operators also have an interest in new gTLDs. The PDP work has been underway for some months considering overarching issues, and the working group is now breaking into work tracks to focus on specific groupings of related issues. Country and territory names fall within the Legal/Regulatory work track and would sensibly be dealt with by that work track when it considers other, related, issues around the reservation of names, including *other* geographic names which are not within the scope of this CWG, and names with other sensitivity (which are not geo names).
thanks
Susan
*Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy* | *Valideus Ltd * E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
*Valideus August Public Holiday Opening Hours*
The Valideus offices will be closed for a UK public holiday on Monday 29th August, reopening on Tuesday 30th August 2016.
*From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@ icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Annebeth Lange *Sent:* 24 August 2016 08:24 *To:* Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear Joke, dear Heather, CWG colleagues,
I join Heather in thanking Joke for her excellent work in producing this draft for a progress report. I have gone through it with special attention to your comments and input, Heather, and enclose a version with my questions and comments.
I encourage my fellow colleagues to read the document and give input. We have to decide how to go forward with this, and it would be great to have opinions and suggestions from WG members.
Kind regards,
Annebeth
*From: *<ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Heather Forrest *Date: *Wednesday 24 August 2016 at 04:40 *To: *Joke Braeken, "ctn-crosscom@icann.org" *Subject: *Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear Joke, CWG colleagues,
Tremendous thanks to Joke for her work on producing the first draft of our status report and recommendations, particularly while Steve Chan recovered on medical leave and Emily Barabas transitioned in temporarily as GNSO support staff.
In my view this paper is a good start, and there is a bit more we can do. It is important that we keep this document relatively short, clear and to the point - otherwise we risk losing the community's attention. With this in mind, I propose that we add footnotes and names of earlier documents, groups, etc. to ensure the community has the complete picture of the work in this area (as indeed this is one of our key justifications for terminating our efforts - the multiplicity of policy initiatives on geo names) while streamlining this progress report by pushing the reader to those other documents for more detail/substance.
I also suggest that we amend references to ISO 3166 from "list" to "standard", as that is a lesson we've very helpfully learned from Jaap.
Finally, I believe we should be more clear and direct on our recommendations at the end, as ultimately we're in the best position to advise as to what should happen next and, crucially, what is needed for that to succeed (ie, we know best what our deficiencies were as a CWG, and have a view as to how to fix them).
I look forward to our meeting next week and the opportunity to discuss this progress report in more detail.
Best wishes,
Heather
------------------------------
*From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 23, 2016 21:39 *To:* ctn-crosscom@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear all,
A short reminder that the next call for the CWG-UCTN WG is scheduled for next week Monday 29 August, at 21 UTC.
You are kindly invited to provide us with your input, comments and feedback on the attached strawman paper by the end of this week.
Thank you!
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO
Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/
*From: *Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> *Date: *Friday 19 August 2016 at 11:57 *To: *"ctn-crosscom@icann.org" <ctn-crosscom@icann.org> *Subject: *post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear All,
Following the events at ICANN56 in Helsinki, staff drafted a strawman paper, as requested by the CWG-UCTN co-chairs. The attached paper
lays out the Group’s discussion to-date, and provides the working group’s conclusions and recommendations in relation to the Group’s main objective.
This document aims at generating a discussion among the group, regarding the next steps, taking into account that the main objective of the WG is to provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that is applicable across the respective SO's and AC's defining rules guiding the use of country and territory names as top-level domains that, ideally, can be applied objectively to alpha-2 and alpha-3 ISO 3166-1 codes as well as full country and territory names.
*Next meetings:*
1. *Monday 22 August, 21 UTC.*CANCELLED.
The co-chairs preferred to allow WG members sufficient time to review the post-Helsinki strawman paper, and to comment on it
2. *Monday 29 August, 21 UTC.* A calendar invite will follow. On the agenda: discussion of the post-Helsinki strawman paper
3. *Monday 19 September, 21 UTC.* A calendar invite will follow
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO
Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Timo, It doesn’t matter whether or not ccTLDs are run as non-profits; or gTLDs are run as for-profits: Yes, the ccNSO is made up of ccTLDs operators. No, the gNSO is not made up of only gTLD operators! They represent themselves in the RySG (Registry Stakeholder Group). But that is just ONE of many stakeholders with a seat at the table of the gNSO: Commercial Stakeholder Group Commercial Business Users Intellectual Property Internet Service Providers Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Non-Commercial Users Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Registrars Stakeholder Group Registries Stakeholder Group <- THAT’s the RySG! So while most gNSO stakeholders are indeed “for-profit” orientated; it’s a completely different setup than the ccNSO. And the gTLD registries are just one amongst many stakeholders. Alexander From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Timo Võhmar Sent: Freitag, 26. August 2016 16:11 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> Cc: ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Hi Susan Yes I referred to gNSO with this statement as gTLDs are mostly run for profit and ccTLDs by non-profits with other ideals in mind. Of course there are exceptions to this rule on both sides. Balanced CWG is the way forward. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> > wrote: Hi Timo Could you explain please who and what you mean by “give the power of decision over these strings to group with solely commercial goals in mind”? From the context it seems you refer to the GNSO, so I would like to be sure if I understand you correctly. thanks Susan From: Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee <mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee> ] Sent: 26 August 2016 13:04 To: Susan Payne Cc: Annebeth Lange; Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Hi, First of all thank you all for accepting me to this CWG - this has been my first experience with such processes. It has been educational. Anyhow, I would like to express my strong disagreement with the recommendation to even mention GNSO PDP as a viable solution to move forward with these issues. In my view this can be solved only in the balanced cross community workgroup with representatives from all the necessary groups (ccnso, gnso, gac etc). WIth that said I am very sad that this CWG was not able to achieve more. We are still talking about country names and codes here so for me it seems the worst idea possible to give the power of decision over these strings to group with solely commercial goals in mind. Please do not do that! Let's specifiy what was lacking with this CWG and propose to form new one. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> > wrote: I would like to add my thanks to Joke for her excellent draft progress report. Thanks also to Heather and Annebeth for their comments and suggestions – here are a couple from me. Regarding the recommendations section I note that in Annebeth’s version, which I worked from as I thought it was the latest, some of the recommendations Heather proposed were not included. In full, those recommendations are: In light of the need for further work, the complexity of the issue at hand, the aforementioned inconsistencies between various ICANN policies, and the limited mandate of the CWG on the use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs, the CWG recommends that: 1) The ICANN community consolidate all policy efforts relating to geographic names (as that term has traditionally very broadly been defined in the ICANN environment to this point) to enable in-depth analyses and discussions on all aspects related to all geographic-related names at all levels of the DNS. This is the only way, in our view, to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable. 2) Future work should take place with the authority of a policy development process under ICANN’s Bylaws, with a clearly drafted Charter or scope of works that sets out how conclusions and recommendations will inform that policy development process. This addresses a key deficiency of this CWG, as it has not been made clear how the group’s work can or will be incorporated in policy-making pursuant to ICANN’s Bylaws. In this regard, we note that the use of geographic names in future new gTLDs falls within the scope of issues to be addressed by the now-formed and operative GNSO PDP on Subsequent Procedures. 3) Future policy development work must facilitate all-inclusive dialogue to ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity to participate. Again, we believe that this is the only way to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable. I am strongly in favour of including these recommendations. If we are to recommend that all policy work on geographic terms be consolidated to ensure harmonisation (which I agree that it should) then I think we must also address the question of where that consolidation should happen and make our recommendation. The PDP has a formalised status under the ICANN Bylaws and a clear process. The treatment of the outcomes of the PDP by the Board are also clearly set out, with a process of consultation to be followed where the Board determines that the recommendations “are not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN”. In addition, as Heather has pointed out, the issue of geo names in future “rounds” of New gTLDs also already within the Charter of the Subsequent Procedures PDP which has a large number of participants (133) and is not limited to the GNSO but includes members of the ALAC, GAC and unaffiliated individuals. I believe members of the ccNSO also already participate (even if not identified as such on the list of participants), since many ccTLD operators also have an interest in new gTLDs. The PDP work has been underway for some months considering overarching issues, and the working group is now breaking into work tracks to focus on specific groupings of related issues. Country and territory names fall within the Legal/Regulatory work track and would sensibly be dealt with by that work track when it considers other, related, issues around the reservation of names, including other geographic names which are not within the scope of this CWG, and names with other sensitivity (which are not geo names). thanks Susan Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 <tel:%2B44%2020%207421%208255> T: +44 20 7421 8299 <tel:%2B44%2020%207421%208299> M: +44 7971 661175 <tel:%2B44%207971%20661175> Valideus August Public Holiday Opening Hours The Valideus offices will be closed for a UK public holiday on Monday 29th August, reopening on Tuesday 30th August 2016. From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange Sent: 24 August 2016 08:24 To: Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear Joke, dear Heather, CWG colleagues, I join Heather in thanking Joke for her excellent work in producing this draft for a progress report. I have gone through it with special attention to your comments and input, Heather, and enclose a version with my questions and comments. I encourage my fellow colleagues to read the document and give input. We have to decide how to go forward with this, and it would be great to have opinions and suggestions from WG members. Kind regards, Annebeth From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Heather Forrest Date: Wednesday 24 August 2016 at 04:40 To: Joke Braeken, "ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> " Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear Joke, CWG colleagues, Tremendous thanks to Joke for her work on producing the first draft of our status report and recommendations, particularly while Steve Chan recovered on medical leave and Emily Barabas transitioned in temporarily as GNSO support staff. In my view this paper is a good start, and there is a bit more we can do. It is important that we keep this document relatively short, clear and to the point - otherwise we risk losing the community's attention. With this in mind, I propose that we add footnotes and names of earlier documents, groups, etc. to ensure the community has the complete picture of the work in this area (as indeed this is one of our key justifications for terminating our efforts - the multiplicity of policy initiatives on geo names) while streamlining this progress report by pushing the reader to those other documents for more detail/substance. I also suggest that we amend references to ISO 3166 from "list" to "standard", as that is a lesson we've very helpfully learned from Jaap. Finally, I believe we should be more clear and direct on our recommendations at the end, as ultimately we're in the best position to advise as to what should happen next and, crucially, what is needed for that to succeed (ie, we know best what our deficiencies were as a CWG, and have a view as to how to fix them). I look forward to our meeting next week and the opportunity to discuss this progress report in more detail. Best wishes, Heather _____ From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> > Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 21:39 To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear all, A short reminder that the next call for the CWG-UCTN WG is scheduled for next week Monday 29 August, at 21 UTC. You are kindly invited to provide us with your input, comments and feedback on the attached strawman paper by the end of this week. Thank you! Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto: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 From: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> > Date: Friday 19 August 2016 at 11:57 To: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> " <ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> > Subject: post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear All, Following the events at ICANN56 in Helsinki, staff drafted a strawman paper, as requested by the CWG-UCTN co-chairs. The attached paper lays out the Group’s discussion to-date, and provides the working group’s conclusions and recommendations in relation to the Group’s main objective. This document aims at generating a discussion among the group, regarding the next steps, taking into account that the main objective of the WG is to provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that is applicable across the respective SO's and AC's defining rules guiding the use of country and territory names as top-level domains that, ideally, can be applied objectively to alpha-2 and alpha-3 ISO 3166-1 codes as well as full country and territory names. Next meetings: 1. Monday 22 August, 21 UTC.CANCELLED. The co-chairs preferred to allow WG members sufficient time to review the post-Helsinki strawman paper, and to comment on it 2. Monday 29 August, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow. On the agenda: discussion of the post-Helsinki strawman paper 3. Monday 19 September, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto: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 _______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
I am sorry for drawing equal sign between gNSO and gTLD operators. Thank you Alexander for correcting me! But my point still remains gNSO is not balanced in this matter and, as you admitted, is profit oriented. It is lacking the voice of ccNSO and GAG that have direct issues with releasing country names and country codes for commercial use. Sorry for repeating my self so much but CWG. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Timo,
It doesn’t matter whether or not ccTLDs are run as non-profits; or gTLDs are run as for-profits:
Yes, the ccNSO is made up of ccTLDs operators.
No, the gNSO is not made up of only gTLD operators! They represent themselves in the RySG (Registry Stakeholder Group). But that is just ONE of many stakeholders with a seat at the table of the gNSO:
Commercial Stakeholder Group
Commercial Business Users
Intellectual Property
Internet Service Providers
Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
Non-Commercial Users
Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns
Registrars Stakeholder Group
Registries Stakeholder Group <- THAT’s the RySG!
So while most gNSO stakeholders are indeed “for-profit” orientated; it’s a completely different setup than the ccNSO. And the gTLD registries are just one amongst many stakeholders.
Alexander
*From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@ icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Timo Võhmar *Sent:* Freitag, 26. August 2016 16:11 *To:* Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> *Cc:* ctn-crosscom@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Hi Susan
Yes I referred to gNSO with this statement as gTLDs are mostly run for profit and ccTLDs by non-profits with other ideals in mind. Of course there are exceptions to this rule on both sides.
Balanced CWG is the way forward.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar
Head of development
Estonian Internet Foundation
www.internet.ee
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
Hi Timo
Could you explain please who and what you mean by “give the power of decision over these strings to group with solely commercial goals in mind”? From the context it seems you refer to the GNSO, so I would like to be sure if I understand you correctly.
thanks
Susan
*From:* Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee] *Sent:* 26 August 2016 13:04 *To:* Susan Payne *Cc:* Annebeth Lange; Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Hi,
First of all thank you all for accepting me to this CWG - this has been my first experience with such processes. It has been educational.
Anyhow, I would like to express my strong disagreement with the recommendation to even mention GNSO PDP as a viable solution to move forward with these issues. In my view this can be solved only in the balanced cross community workgroup with representatives from all the necessary groups (ccnso, gnso, gac etc). WIth that said I am very sad that this CWG was not able to achieve more. We are still talking about country names and codes here so for me it seems the worst idea possible to give the power of decision over these strings to group with solely commercial goals in mind. Please do not do that!
Let's specifiy what was lacking with this CWG and propose to form new one.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar
Head of development
Estonian Internet Foundation
www.internet.ee
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
I would like to add my thanks to Joke for her excellent draft progress report. Thanks also to Heather and Annebeth for their comments and suggestions – here are a couple from me.
Regarding the recommendations section I note that in Annebeth’s version, which I worked from as I thought it was the latest, some of the recommendations Heather proposed were not included. In full, those recommendations are:
In light of the need for further work, the complexity of the issue at hand, the aforementioned inconsistencies between various ICANN policies, and the limited mandate of the CWG on the use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs, the CWG recommends that:
1) The ICANN community consolidate all policy efforts relating to geographic names (as that term has traditionally very broadly been defined in the ICANN environment to this point) to enable in-depth analyses and discussions on all aspects related to all geographic-related names at all levels of the DNS. This is the only way, in our view, to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable.
2) Future work should take place with the authority of a policy development process under ICANN’s Bylaws, with a clearly drafted Charter or scope of works that sets out how conclusions and recommendations will inform that policy development process. This addresses a key deficiency of this CWG, as it has not been made clear how the group’s work can or will be incorporated in policy-making pursuant to ICANN’s Bylaws. In this regard, we note that the use of geographic names in future new gTLDs falls within the scope of issues to be addressed by the now-formed and operative GNSO PDP on Subsequent Procedures.
3) Future policy development work must facilitate all-inclusive dialogue to ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity to participate. Again, we believe that this is the only way to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable.
I am strongly in favour of including these recommendations. If we are to recommend that all policy work on geographic terms be consolidated to ensure harmonisation (which I agree that it should) then I think we must also address the question of where that consolidation should happen and make our recommendation. The PDP has a formalised status under the ICANN Bylaws and a clear process. The treatment of the outcomes of the PDP by the Board are also clearly set out, with a process of consultation to be followed where the Board determines that the recommendations “are not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN”.
In addition, as Heather has pointed out, the issue of geo names in future “rounds” of New gTLDs also already within the Charter of the Subsequent Procedures PDP which has a large number of participants (133) and is not limited to the GNSO but includes members of the ALAC, GAC and unaffiliated individuals. I believe members of the ccNSO also already participate (even if not identified as such on the list of participants), since many ccTLD operators also have an interest in new gTLDs. The PDP work has been underway for some months considering overarching issues, and the working group is now breaking into work tracks to focus on specific groupings of related issues. Country and territory names fall within the Legal/Regulatory work track and would sensibly be dealt with by that work track when it considers other, related, issues around the reservation of names, including *other* geographic names which are not within the scope of this CWG, and names with other sensitivity (which are not geo names).
thanks
Susan
*Susan PayneHead of Legal Policy* | *Valideus Ltd* E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
*Valideus August Public Holiday Opening Hours*
The Valideus offices will be closed for a UK public holiday on Monday 29th August, reopening on Tuesday 30th August 2016.
*From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@ icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Annebeth Lange *Sent:* 24 August 2016 08:24 *To:* Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear Joke, dear Heather, CWG colleagues,
I join Heather in thanking Joke for her excellent work in producing this draft for a progress report. I have gone through it with special attention to your comments and input, Heather, and enclose a version with my questions and comments.
I encourage my fellow colleagues to read the document and give input. We have to decide how to go forward with this, and it would be great to have opinions and suggestions from WG members.
Kind regards,
Annebeth
*From: *<ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Heather Forrest *Date: *Wednesday 24 August 2016 at 04:40 *To: *Joke Braeken, "ctn-crosscom@icann.org" *Subject: *Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear Joke, CWG colleagues,
Tremendous thanks to Joke for her work on producing the first draft of our status report and recommendations, particularly while Steve Chan recovered on medical leave and Emily Barabas transitioned in temporarily as GNSO support staff.
In my view this paper is a good start, and there is a bit more we can do. It is important that we keep this document relatively short, clear and to the point - otherwise we risk losing the community's attention. With this in mind, I propose that we add footnotes and names of earlier documents, groups, etc. to ensure the community has the complete picture of the work in this area (as indeed this is one of our key justifications for terminating our efforts - the multiplicity of policy initiatives on geo names) while streamlining this progress report by pushing the reader to those other documents for more detail/substance.
I also suggest that we amend references to ISO 3166 from "list" to "standard", as that is a lesson we've very helpfully learned from Jaap.
Finally, I believe we should be more clear and direct on our recommendations at the end, as ultimately we're in the best position to advise as to what should happen next and, crucially, what is needed for that to succeed (ie, we know best what our deficiencies were as a CWG, and have a view as to how to fix them).
I look forward to our meeting next week and the opportunity to discuss this progress report in more detail.
Best wishes,
Heather
------------------------------
*From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 23, 2016 21:39 *To:* ctn-crosscom@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear all,
A short reminder that the next call for the CWG-UCTN WG is scheduled for next week Monday 29 August, at 21 UTC.
You are kindly invited to provide us with your input, comments and feedback on the attached strawman paper by the end of this week.
Thank you!
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO
Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/
*From: *Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> *Date: *Friday 19 August 2016 at 11:57 *To: *"ctn-crosscom@icann.org" <ctn-crosscom@icann.org> *Subject: *post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear All,
Following the events at ICANN56 in Helsinki, staff drafted a strawman paper, as requested by the CWG-UCTN co-chairs. The attached paper
lays out the Group’s discussion to-date, and provides the working group’s conclusions and recommendations in relation to the Group’s main objective.
This document aims at generating a discussion among the group, regarding the next steps, taking into account that the main objective of the WG is to provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that is applicable across the respective SO's and AC's defining rules guiding the use of country and territory names as top-level domains that, ideally, can be applied objectively to alpha-2 and alpha-3 ISO 3166-1 codes as well as full country and territory names.
*Next meetings:*
1. *Monday 22 August, 21 UTC.*CANCELLED.
The co-chairs preferred to allow WG members sufficient time to review the post-Helsinki strawman paper, and to comment on it
2. *Monday 29 August, 21 UTC.* A calendar invite will follow. On the agenda: discussion of the post-Helsinki strawman paper
3. *Monday 19 September, 21 UTC.* A calendar invite will follow
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO
Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Dear Timo, The GAC placed the Country Name and ISO 3166 III ban into the AGB in the first place – so no worries: They will make themselves heard. They expressed a very clear desire in Helsinki that somebody should please come up with a policy recommendation: THEN they mull about it. GAC is not known well as CREATING policy: it mostly comments on recommendations. The ccTLDs. They could have spoken up IN THIS WG. They didn’t. If I would put myself in their shoes and if I were of protectionist composition I would make a simple demand: The prerequisite to the delegation of a ISO 3166 III code elements or a Country & Territory name (or their short form) would be like with all other geo names the “letter of non-objection” of the relevant government institution; PLUS the absolution of the national ccTLD manager! This way to “mitigate” your “risk” (which is selling fewer ccTLD registrations) you can simply require the applicant to employ YOUR services – or put them at risk of getting your absolution. And if you were say “.tr” and Turkey wanted “.turkey”: Wouldn’t the ccTLD operator the almost natural choice as gTLD operator? I know that you personally would prefer to treat .est as “ccTLD” – so you can run it like “.ee”. This is just not going to happen – and I spoke with a number of GAC members who are ON THE ROPES to prevent that: ccTLDs are two letter codes – and basta. If we now introduce SOME three letter codes as ccTLDs – while others are gTLDs – the chaos would be perfect. The Internet user knows all “.ll” are ccTLDs – and everything else is a gTLD. All my personal opinions, but I am in this circus since 2005 and co-founded a geo based gTLD (and create the applicant for another one right now) so I thought about this for a long time. Alexander From: Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee] Sent: Freitag, 26. August 2016 17:15 To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC I am sorry for drawing equal sign between gNSO and gTLD operators. Thank you Alexander for correcting me! But my point still remains gNSO is not balanced in this matter and, as you admitted, is profit oriented. It is lacking the voice of ccNSO and GAG that have direct issues with releasing country names and country codes for commercial use. Sorry for repeating my self so much but CWG. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Timo, It doesn’t matter whether or not ccTLDs are run as non-profits; or gTLDs are run as for-profits: Yes, the ccNSO is made up of ccTLDs operators. No, the gNSO is not made up of only gTLD operators! They represent themselves in the RySG (Registry Stakeholder Group). But that is just ONE of many stakeholders with a seat at the table of the gNSO: Commercial Stakeholder Group Commercial Business Users Intellectual Property Internet Service Providers Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Non-Commercial Users Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Registrars Stakeholder Group Registries Stakeholder Group <- THAT’s the RySG! So while most gNSO stakeholders are indeed “for-profit” orientated; it’s a completely different setup than the ccNSO. And the gTLD registries are just one amongst many stakeholders. Alexander From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Timo Võhmar Sent: Freitag, 26. August 2016 16:11 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> > Cc: ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Hi Susan Yes I referred to gNSO with this statement as gTLDs are mostly run for profit and ccTLDs by non-profits with other ideals in mind. Of course there are exceptions to this rule on both sides. Balanced CWG is the way forward. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> > wrote: Hi Timo Could you explain please who and what you mean by “give the power of decision over these strings to group with solely commercial goals in mind”? From the context it seems you refer to the GNSO, so I would like to be sure if I understand you correctly. thanks Susan From: Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee <mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee> ] Sent: 26 August 2016 13:04 To: Susan Payne Cc: Annebeth Lange; Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Hi, First of all thank you all for accepting me to this CWG - this has been my first experience with such processes. It has been educational. Anyhow, I would like to express my strong disagreement with the recommendation to even mention GNSO PDP as a viable solution to move forward with these issues. In my view this can be solved only in the balanced cross community workgroup with representatives from all the necessary groups (ccnso, gnso, gac etc). WIth that said I am very sad that this CWG was not able to achieve more. We are still talking about country names and codes here so for me it seems the worst idea possible to give the power of decision over these strings to group with solely commercial goals in mind. Please do not do that! Let's specifiy what was lacking with this CWG and propose to form new one. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> > wrote: I would like to add my thanks to Joke for her excellent draft progress report. Thanks also to Heather and Annebeth for their comments and suggestions – here are a couple from me. Regarding the recommendations section I note that in Annebeth’s version, which I worked from as I thought it was the latest, some of the recommendations Heather proposed were not included. In full, those recommendations are: In light of the need for further work, the complexity of the issue at hand, the aforementioned inconsistencies between various ICANN policies, and the limited mandate of the CWG on the use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs, the CWG recommends that: 1) The ICANN community consolidate all policy efforts relating to geographic names (as that term has traditionally very broadly been defined in the ICANN environment to this point) to enable in-depth analyses and discussions on all aspects related to all geographic-related names at all levels of the DNS. This is the only way, in our view, to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable. 2) Future work should take place with the authority of a policy development process under ICANN’s Bylaws, with a clearly drafted Charter or scope of works that sets out how conclusions and recommendations will inform that policy development process. This addresses a key deficiency of this CWG, as it has not been made clear how the group’s work can or will be incorporated in policy-making pursuant to ICANN’s Bylaws. In this regard, we note that the use of geographic names in future new gTLDs falls within the scope of issues to be addressed by the now-formed and operative GNSO PDP on Subsequent Procedures. 3) Future policy development work must facilitate all-inclusive dialogue to ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity to participate. Again, we believe that this is the only way to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable. I am strongly in favour of including these recommendations. If we are to recommend that all policy work on geographic terms be consolidated to ensure harmonisation (which I agree that it should) then I think we must also address the question of where that consolidation should happen and make our recommendation. The PDP has a formalised status under the ICANN Bylaws and a clear process. The treatment of the outcomes of the PDP by the Board are also clearly set out, with a process of consultation to be followed where the Board determines that the recommendations “are not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN”. In addition, as Heather has pointed out, the issue of geo names in future “rounds” of New gTLDs also already within the Charter of the Subsequent Procedures PDP which has a large number of participants (133) and is not limited to the GNSO but includes members of the ALAC, GAC and unaffiliated individuals. I believe members of the ccNSO also already participate (even if not identified as such on the list of participants), since many ccTLD operators also have an interest in new gTLDs. The PDP work has been underway for some months considering overarching issues, and the working group is now breaking into work tracks to focus on specific groupings of related issues. Country and territory names fall within the Legal/Regulatory work track and would sensibly be dealt with by that work track when it considers other, related, issues around the reservation of names, including other geographic names which are not within the scope of this CWG, and names with other sensitivity (which are not geo names). thanks Susan Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 <tel:%2B44%2020%207421%208255> T: +44 20 7421 8299 <tel:%2B44%2020%207421%208299> M: +44 7971 661175 <tel:%2B44%207971%20661175> Valideus August Public Holiday Opening Hours The Valideus offices will be closed for a UK public holiday on Monday 29th August, reopening on Tuesday 30th August 2016. From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange Sent: 24 August 2016 08:24 To: Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear Joke, dear Heather, CWG colleagues, I join Heather in thanking Joke for her excellent work in producing this draft for a progress report. I have gone through it with special attention to your comments and input, Heather, and enclose a version with my questions and comments. I encourage my fellow colleagues to read the document and give input. We have to decide how to go forward with this, and it would be great to have opinions and suggestions from WG members. Kind regards, Annebeth From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Heather Forrest Date: Wednesday 24 August 2016 at 04:40 To: Joke Braeken, "ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> " Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear Joke, CWG colleagues, Tremendous thanks to Joke for her work on producing the first draft of our status report and recommendations, particularly while Steve Chan recovered on medical leave and Emily Barabas transitioned in temporarily as GNSO support staff. In my view this paper is a good start, and there is a bit more we can do. It is important that we keep this document relatively short, clear and to the point - otherwise we risk losing the community's attention. With this in mind, I propose that we add footnotes and names of earlier documents, groups, etc. to ensure the community has the complete picture of the work in this area (as indeed this is one of our key justifications for terminating our efforts - the multiplicity of policy initiatives on geo names) while streamlining this progress report by pushing the reader to those other documents for more detail/substance. I also suggest that we amend references to ISO 3166 from "list" to "standard", as that is a lesson we've very helpfully learned from Jaap. Finally, I believe we should be more clear and direct on our recommendations at the end, as ultimately we're in the best position to advise as to what should happen next and, crucially, what is needed for that to succeed (ie, we know best what our deficiencies were as a CWG, and have a view as to how to fix them). I look forward to our meeting next week and the opportunity to discuss this progress report in more detail. Best wishes, Heather _____ From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> > Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 21:39 To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear all, A short reminder that the next call for the CWG-UCTN WG is scheduled for next week Monday 29 August, at 21 UTC. You are kindly invited to provide us with your input, comments and feedback on the attached strawman paper by the end of this week. Thank you! Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto: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 From: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> > Date: Friday 19 August 2016 at 11:57 To: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> " <ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> > Subject: post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear All, Following the events at ICANN56 in Helsinki, staff drafted a strawman paper, as requested by the CWG-UCTN co-chairs. The attached paper lays out the Group’s discussion to-date, and provides the working group’s conclusions and recommendations in relation to the Group’s main objective. This document aims at generating a discussion among the group, regarding the next steps, taking into account that the main objective of the WG is to provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that is applicable across the respective SO's and AC's defining rules guiding the use of country and territory names as top-level domains that, ideally, can be applied objectively to alpha-2 and alpha-3 ISO 3166-1 codes as well as full country and territory names. Next meetings: 1. Monday 22 August, 21 UTC.CANCELLED. The co-chairs preferred to allow WG members sufficient time to review the post-Helsinki strawman paper, and to comment on it 2. Monday 29 August, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow. On the agenda: discussion of the post-Helsinki strawman paper 3. Monday 19 September, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto: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 _______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom _______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7752 / Virus Database: 4647/12883 - Release Date: 08/26/16
Dear All, Thank you for including me in this working group. I am looking forward to contributing to the discussion and views of ccTLDs. As a new member to this WG and trying to catch up with the discussion, I share the concern of others in this thread related to the open participation of all stakeholders in the decision making process during the PDP. For example, according to Susan´s email: ¨In addition, as Heather has pointed out, the issue of geo names in future “rounds” of New gTLDs also already within the Charter of the Subsequent Procedures PDP which has a large number of participants (133) and is not limited to the GNSO but includes members of the ALAC, GAC and unaffiliated individuals. I believe members of the ccNSO also already participate (even if not identified as such on the list of participants), since many ccTLD operators also have an interest in new gTLDs. ¨. If the process works as mentioned by Susan above, I don´t see a formal and accountable representation of the ccNSO in this discussion. I strongly believe the ccNSO needs to contribute and be included formally in all future discussions. I would greatly appreciate if other members of this group could help me answer my concern of the formal representation of the ccNSO in the PDP process. Best, Rosalía
On Aug 26, 2016, at 8:34 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Dear Timo, <>
The GAC placed the Country Name and ISO 3166 III ban into the AGB in the first place – so no worries: They will make themselves heard. They expressed a very clear desire in Helsinki that somebody should please come up with a policy recommendation: THEN they mull about it. GAC is not known well as CREATING policy: it mostly comments on recommendations.
The ccTLDs. They could have spoken up IN THIS WG. They didn’t. If I would put myself in their shoes and if I were of protectionist composition I would make a simple demand: The prerequisite to the delegation of a ISO 3166 III code elements or a Country & Territory name (or their short form) would be like with all other geo names the “letter of non-objection” of the relevant government institution; PLUS the absolution of the national ccTLD manager! This way to “mitigate” your “risk” (which is selling fewer ccTLD registrations) you can simply require the applicant to employ YOUR services – or put them at risk of getting your absolution. And if you were say “.tr” and Turkey wanted “.turkey”: Wouldn’t the ccTLD operator the almost natural choice as gTLD operator?
I know that you personally would prefer to treat .est as “ccTLD” – so you can run it like “.ee”. This is just not going to happen – and I spoke with a number of GAC members who are ON THE ROPES to prevent that: ccTLDs are two letter codes – and basta. If we now introduce SOME three letter codes as ccTLDs – while others are gTLDs – the chaos would be perfect. The Internet user knows all “.ll” are ccTLDs – and everything else is a gTLD.
All my personal opinions, but I am in this circus since 2005 and co-founded a geo based gTLD (and create the applicant for another one right now) so I thought about this for a long time.
Alexander
From: Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee <mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee>] Sent: Freitag, 26. August 2016 17:15 To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
I am sorry for drawing equal sign between gNSO and gTLD operators. Thank you Alexander for correcting me!
But my point still remains gNSO is not balanced in this matter and, as you admitted, is profit oriented. It is lacking the voice of ccNSO and GAG that have direct issues with releasing country names and country codes for commercial use. Sorry for repeating my self so much but CWG.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee/>
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Timo, <>
It doesn’t matter whether or not ccTLDs are run as non-profits; or gTLDs are run as for-profits:
Yes, the ccNSO is made up of ccTLDs operators.
No, the gNSO is not made up of only gTLD operators! They represent themselves in the RySG (Registry Stakeholder Group). But that is just ONE of many stakeholders with a seat at the table of the gNSO:
Commercial Stakeholder Group Commercial Business Users Intellectual Property Internet Service Providers
Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Non-Commercial Users Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns
Registrars Stakeholder Group
Registries Stakeholder Group <- THAT’s the RySG!
So while most gNSO stakeholders are indeed “for-profit” orientated; it’s a completely different setup than the ccNSO. And the gTLD registries are just one amongst many stakeholders.
Alexander
From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Timo Võhmar Sent: Freitag, 26. August 2016 16:11 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> Cc: ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Hi Susan
Yes I referred to gNSO with this statement as gTLDs are mostly run for profit and ccTLDs by non-profits with other ideals in mind. Of course there are exceptions to this rule on both sides. Balanced CWG is the way forward.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee/>
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> wrote:
Hi Timo Could you explain please who and what you mean by “give the power of decision over these strings to group with solely commercial goals in mind”? From the context it seems you refer to the GNSO, so I would like to be sure if I understand you correctly. thanks Susan
From: Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee <mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee>] Sent: 26 August 2016 13:04 To: Susan Payne Cc: Annebeth Lange; Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Hi,
First of all thank you all for accepting me to this CWG - this has been my first experience with such processes. It has been educational.
Anyhow, I would like to express my strong disagreement with the recommendation to even mention GNSO PDP as a viable solution to move forward with these issues. In my view this can be solved only in the balanced cross community workgroup with representatives from all the necessary groups (ccnso, gnso, gac etc). WIth that said I am very sad that this CWG was not able to achieve more. We are still talking about country names and codes here so for me it seems the worst idea possible to give the power of decision over these strings to group with solely commercial goals in mind. Please do not do that!
Let's specifiy what was lacking with this CWG and propose to form new one.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee/>
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> wrote: I would like to add my thanks to Joke for her excellent draft progress report. Thanks also to Heather and Annebeth for their comments and suggestions – here are a couple from me.
Regarding the recommendations section I note that in Annebeth’s version, which I worked from as I thought it was the latest, some of the recommendations Heather proposed were not included. In full, those recommendations are:
In light of the need for further work, the complexity of the issue at hand, the aforementioned inconsistencies between various ICANN policies, and the limited mandate of the CWG on the use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs, the CWG recommends that:
1) The ICANN community consolidate all policy efforts relating to geographic names (as that term has traditionally very broadly been defined in the ICANN environment to this point) to enable in-depth analyses and discussions on all aspects related to all geographic-related names at all levels of the DNS. This is the only way, in our view, to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable.
2) Future work should take place with the authority of a policy development process under ICANN’s Bylaws, with a clearly drafted Charter or scope of works that sets out how conclusions and recommendations will inform that policy development process. This addresses a key deficiency of this CWG, as it has not been made clear how the group’s work can or will be incorporated in policy-making pursuant to ICANN’s Bylaws. In this regard, we note that the use of geographic names in future new gTLDs falls within the scope of issues to be addressed by the now-formed and operative GNSO PDP on Subsequent Procedures.
3) Future policy development work must facilitate all-inclusive dialogue to ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity to participate. Again, we believe that this is the only way to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable.
I am strongly in favour of including these recommendations. If we are to recommend that all policy work on geographic terms be consolidated to ensure harmonisation (which I agree that it should) then I think we must also address the question of where that consolidation should happen and make our recommendation. The PDP has a formalised status under the ICANN Bylaws and a clear process. The treatment of the outcomes of the PDP by the Board are also clearly set out, with a process of consultation to be followed where the Board determines that the recommendations “are not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN”.
In addition, as Heather has pointed out, the issue of geo names in future “rounds” of New gTLDs also already within the Charter of the Subsequent Procedures PDP which has a large number of participants (133) and is not limited to the GNSO but includes members of the ALAC, GAC and unaffiliated individuals. I believe members of the ccNSO also already participate (even if not identified as such on the list of participants), since many ccTLD operators also have an interest in new gTLDs. The PDP work has been underway for some months considering overarching issues, and the working group is now breaking into work tracks to focus on specific groupings of related issues. Country and territory names fall within the Legal/Regulatory work track and would sensibly be dealt with by that work track when it considers other, related, issues around the reservation of names, including other geographic names which are not within the scope of this CWG, and names with other sensitivity (which are not geo names).
thanks
Susan
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd
E: susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 <tel:%2B44%2020%207421%208255> T: +44 20 7421 8299 <tel:%2B44%2020%207421%208299> M: +44 7971 661175 <tel:%2B44%207971%20661175>
Valideus August Public Holiday Opening Hours The Valideus offices will be closed for a UK public holiday on Monday 29th August, reopening on Tuesday 30th August 2016.
From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange Sent: 24 August 2016 08:24 To: Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear Joke, dear Heather, CWG colleagues,
I join Heather in thanking Joke for her excellent work in producing this draft for a progress report. I have gone through it with special attention to your comments and input, Heather, and enclose a version with my questions and comments.
I encourage my fellow colleagues to read the document and give input. We have to decide how to go forward with this, and it would be great to have opinions and suggestions from WG members.
Kind regards, Annebeth
From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Heather Forrest Date: Wednesday 24 August 2016 at 04:40 To: Joke Braeken, "ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear Joke, CWG colleagues,
Tremendous thanks to Joke for her work on producing the first draft of our status report and recommendations, particularly while Steve Chan recovered on medical leave and Emily Barabas transitioned in temporarily as GNSO support staff.
In my view this paper is a good start, and there is a bit more we can do. It is important that we keep this document relatively short, clear and to the point - otherwise we risk losing the community's attention. With this in mind, I propose that we add footnotes and names of earlier documents, groups, etc. to ensure the community has the complete picture of the work in this area (as indeed this is one of our key justifications for terminating our efforts - the multiplicity of policy initiatives on geo names) while streamlining this progress report by pushing the reader to those other documents for more detail/substance.
I also suggest that we amend references to ISO 3166 from "list" to "standard", as that is a lesson we've very helpfully learned from Jaap.
Finally, I believe we should be more clear and direct on our recommendations at the end, as ultimately we're in the best position to advise as to what should happen next and, crucially, what is needed for that to succeed (ie, we know best what our deficiencies were as a CWG, and have a view as to how to fix them).
I look forward to our meeting next week and the opportunity to discuss this progress report in more detail.
Best wishes,
Heather
From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 21:39 To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear all,
A short reminder that the next call for the CWG-UCTN WG is scheduled for next week Monday 29 August, at 21 UTC.
You are kindly invited to provide us with your input, comments and feedback on the attached strawman paper by the end of this week.
Thank you!
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto: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/>
From: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>> Date: Friday 19 August 2016 at 11:57 To: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>" <ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>> Subject: post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear All,
Following the events at ICANN56 in Helsinki, staff drafted a strawman paper, as requested by the CWG-UCTN co-chairs. The attached paper
lays out the Group’s discussion to-date, and provides the working group’s conclusions and recommendations in relation to the Group’s main objective.
This document aims at generating a discussion among the group, regarding the next steps, taking into account that the main objective of the WG is to provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that is applicable across the respective SO's and AC's defining rules guiding the use of country and territory names as top-level domains that, ideally, can be applied objectively to alpha-2 and alpha-3 ISO 3166-1 codes as well as full country and territory names.
Next meetings:
1. Monday 22 August, 21 UTC.CANCELLED.
The co-chairs preferred to allow WG members sufficient time to review the post-Helsinki strawman paper, and to comment on it
2. Monday 29 August, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow. On the agenda: discussion of the post-Helsinki strawman paper
3. Monday 19 September, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom>
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom>
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2016.0.7752 / Virus Database: 4647/12883 - Release Date: 08/26/16 _______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom>
Dear Rosalia, https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-unct.htm I recommend a quick look backwards to all previous work of the ccNSO on the issue. Your will realise that nobody is excluding any present or past input of the ccNSo. Cheers Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 26 Aug 2016, at 10:52, Rosalia Morales wrote:
Dear All,
Thank you for including me in this working group. I am looking forward to contributing to the discussion and views of ccTLDs.
As a new member to this WG and trying to catch up with the discussion, I share the concern of others in this thread related to the open participation of all stakeholders in the decision making process during the PDP. For example, according to Susan´s email:
¨In addition, as Heather has pointed out, the issue of geo names in future “rounds” of New gTLDs also already within the Charter of the Subsequent Procedures PDP which has a large number of participants (133) and is not limited to the GNSO but includes members of the ALAC, GAC and unaffiliated individuals. I believe members of the ccNSO also already participate (even if not identified as such on the list of participants), since many ccTLD operators also have an interest in new gTLDs. ¨.
If the process works as mentioned by Susan above, I don´t see a formal and accountable representation of the ccNSO in this discussion. I strongly believe the ccNSO needs to contribute and be included formally in all future discussions.
I would greatly appreciate if other members of this group could help me answer my concern of the formal representation of the ccNSO in the PDP process.
Best, Rosalía
On Aug 26, 2016, at 8:34 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Dear Timo, <>
The GAC placed the Country Name and ISO 3166 III ban into the AGB in the first place – so no worries: They will make themselves heard. They expressed a very clear desire in Helsinki that somebody should please come up with a policy recommendation: THEN they mull about it. GAC is not known well as CREATING policy: it mostly comments on recommendations.
The ccTLDs. They could have spoken up IN THIS WG. They didn’t. If I would put myself in their shoes and if I were of protectionist composition I would make a simple demand: The prerequisite to the delegation of a ISO 3166 III code elements or a Country & Territory name (or their short form) would be like with all other geo names the “letter of non-objection” of the relevant government institution; PLUS the absolution of the national ccTLD manager! This way to “mitigate” your “risk” (which is selling fewer ccTLD registrations) you can simply require the applicant to employ YOUR services – or put them at risk of getting your absolution. And if you were say “.tr” and Turkey wanted “.turkey”: Wouldn’t the ccTLD operator the almost natural choice as gTLD operator?
I know that you personally would prefer to treat .est as “ccTLD” – so you can run it like “.ee”. This is just not going to happen – and I spoke with a number of GAC members who are ON THE ROPES to prevent that: ccTLDs are two letter codes – and basta. If we now introduce SOME three letter codes as ccTLDs – while others are gTLDs – the chaos would be perfect. The Internet user knows all “.ll” are ccTLDs – and everything else is a gTLD.
All my personal opinions, but I am in this circus since 2005 and co-founded a geo based gTLD (and create the applicant for another one right now) so I thought about this for a long time.
Alexander
From: Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee <mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee>] Sent: Freitag, 26. August 2016 17:15 To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
I am sorry for drawing equal sign between gNSO and gTLD operators. Thank you Alexander for correcting me!
But my point still remains gNSO is not balanced in this matter and, as you admitted, is profit oriented. It is lacking the voice of ccNSO and GAG that have direct issues with releasing country names and country codes for commercial use. Sorry for repeating my self so much but CWG.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee/>
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Timo, <>
It doesn’t matter whether or not ccTLDs are run as non-profits; or gTLDs are run as for-profits:
Yes, the ccNSO is made up of ccTLDs operators.
No, the gNSO is not made up of only gTLD operators! They represent themselves in the RySG (Registry Stakeholder Group). But that is just ONE of many stakeholders with a seat at the table of the gNSO:
Commercial Stakeholder Group Commercial Business Users Intellectual Property Internet Service Providers
Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Non-Commercial Users Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns
Registrars Stakeholder Group
Registries Stakeholder Group <- THAT’s the RySG!
So while most gNSO stakeholders are indeed “for-profit” orientated; it’s a completely different setup than the ccNSO. And the gTLD registries are just one amongst many stakeholders.
Alexander
From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Timo Võhmar Sent: Freitag, 26. August 2016 16:11 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> Cc: ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Hi Susan
Yes I referred to gNSO with this statement as gTLDs are mostly run for profit and ccTLDs by non-profits with other ideals in mind. Of course there are exceptions to this rule on both sides. Balanced CWG is the way forward.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee/>
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> wrote:
Hi Timo Could you explain please who and what you mean by “give the power of decision over these strings to group with solely commercial goals in mind”? From the context it seems you refer to the GNSO, so I would like to be sure if I understand you correctly. thanks Susan
From: Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee <mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee>] Sent: 26 August 2016 13:04 To: Susan Payne Cc: Annebeth Lange; Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Hi,
First of all thank you all for accepting me to this CWG - this has been my first experience with such processes. It has been educational.
Anyhow, I would like to express my strong disagreement with the recommendation to even mention GNSO PDP as a viable solution to move forward with these issues. In my view this can be solved only in the balanced cross community workgroup with representatives from all the necessary groups (ccnso, gnso, gac etc). WIth that said I am very sad that this CWG was not able to achieve more. We are still talking about country names and codes here so for me it seems the worst idea possible to give the power of decision over these strings to group with solely commercial goals in mind. Please do not do that!
Let's specifiy what was lacking with this CWG and propose to form new one.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee/>
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> wrote: I would like to add my thanks to Joke for her excellent draft progress report. Thanks also to Heather and Annebeth for their comments and suggestions – here are a couple from me.
Regarding the recommendations section I note that in Annebeth’s version, which I worked from as I thought it was the latest, some of the recommendations Heather proposed were not included. In full, those recommendations are:
In light of the need for further work, the complexity of the issue at hand, the aforementioned inconsistencies between various ICANN policies, and the limited mandate of the CWG on the use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs, the CWG recommends that:
1) The ICANN community consolidate all policy efforts relating to geographic names (as that term has traditionally very broadly been defined in the ICANN environment to this point) to enable in-depth analyses and discussions on all aspects related to all geographic-related names at all levels of the DNS. This is the only way, in our view, to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable.
2) Future work should take place with the authority of a policy development process under ICANN’s Bylaws, with a clearly drafted Charter or scope of works that sets out how conclusions and recommendations will inform that policy development process. This addresses a key deficiency of this CWG, as it has not been made clear how the group’s work can or will be incorporated in policy-making pursuant to ICANN’s Bylaws. In this regard, we note that the use of geographic names in future new gTLDs falls within the scope of issues to be addressed by the now-formed and operative GNSO PDP on Subsequent Procedures.
3) Future policy development work must facilitate all-inclusive dialogue to ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity to participate. Again, we believe that this is the only way to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable.
I am strongly in favour of including these recommendations. If we are to recommend that all policy work on geographic terms be consolidated to ensure harmonisation (which I agree that it should) then I think we must also address the question of where that consolidation should happen and make our recommendation. The PDP has a formalised status under the ICANN Bylaws and a clear process. The treatment of the outcomes of the PDP by the Board are also clearly set out, with a process of consultation to be followed where the Board determines that the recommendations “are not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN”.
In addition, as Heather has pointed out, the issue of geo names in future “rounds” of New gTLDs also already within the Charter of the Subsequent Procedures PDP which has a large number of participants (133) and is not limited to the GNSO but includes members of the ALAC, GAC and unaffiliated individuals. I believe members of the ccNSO also already participate (even if not identified as such on the list of participants), since many ccTLD operators also have an interest in new gTLDs. The PDP work has been underway for some months considering overarching issues, and the working group is now breaking into work tracks to focus on specific groupings of related issues. Country and territory names fall within the Legal/Regulatory work track and would sensibly be dealt with by that work track when it considers other, related, issues around the reservation of names, including other geographic names which are not within the scope of this CWG, and names with other sensitivity (which are not geo names).
thanks
Susan
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd
E: susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 <tel:%2B44%2020%207421%208255> T: +44 20 7421 8299 <tel:%2B44%2020%207421%208299> M: +44 7971 661175 <tel:%2B44%207971%20661175>
Valideus August Public Holiday Opening Hours The Valideus offices will be closed for a UK public holiday on Monday 29th August, reopening on Tuesday 30th August 2016.
From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange Sent: 24 August 2016 08:24 To: Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear Joke, dear Heather, CWG colleagues,
I join Heather in thanking Joke for her excellent work in producing this draft for a progress report. I have gone through it with special attention to your comments and input, Heather, and enclose a version with my questions and comments.
I encourage my fellow colleagues to read the document and give input. We have to decide how to go forward with this, and it would be great to have opinions and suggestions from WG members.
Kind regards, Annebeth
From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Heather Forrest Date: Wednesday 24 August 2016 at 04:40 To: Joke Braeken, "ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear Joke, CWG colleagues,
Tremendous thanks to Joke for her work on producing the first draft of our status report and recommendations, particularly while Steve Chan recovered on medical leave and Emily Barabas transitioned in temporarily as GNSO support staff.
In my view this paper is a good start, and there is a bit more we can do. It is important that we keep this document relatively short, clear and to the point - otherwise we risk losing the community's attention. With this in mind, I propose that we add footnotes and names of earlier documents, groups, etc. to ensure the community has the complete picture of the work in this area (as indeed this is one of our key justifications for terminating our efforts - the multiplicity of policy initiatives on geo names) while streamlining this progress report by pushing the reader to those other documents for more detail/substance.
I also suggest that we amend references to ISO 3166 from "list" to "standard", as that is a lesson we've very helpfully learned from Jaap.
Finally, I believe we should be more clear and direct on our recommendations at the end, as ultimately we're in the best position to advise as to what should happen next and, crucially, what is needed for that to succeed (ie, we know best what our deficiencies were as a CWG, and have a view as to how to fix them).
I look forward to our meeting next week and the opportunity to discuss this progress report in more detail.
Best wishes,
Heather
From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 21:39 To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear all,
A short reminder that the next call for the CWG-UCTN WG is scheduled for next week Monday 29 August, at 21 UTC.
You are kindly invited to provide us with your input, comments and feedback on the attached strawman paper by the end of this week.
Thank you!
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto: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/>
From: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>> Date: Friday 19 August 2016 at 11:57 To: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>" <ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>> Subject: post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear All,
Following the events at ICANN56 in Helsinki, staff drafted a strawman paper, as requested by the CWG-UCTN co-chairs. The attached paper
lays out the Group’s discussion to-date, and provides the working group’s conclusions and recommendations in relation to the Group’s main objective.
This document aims at generating a discussion among the group, regarding the next steps, taking into account that the main objective of the WG is to provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that is applicable across the respective SO's and AC's defining rules guiding the use of country and territory names as top-level domains that, ideally, can be applied objectively to alpha-2 and alpha-3 ISO 3166-1 codes as well as full country and territory names.
Next meetings:
1. Monday 22 August, 21 UTC.CANCELLED.
The co-chairs preferred to allow WG members sufficient time to review the post-Helsinki strawman paper, and to comment on it
2. Monday 29 August, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow. On the agenda: discussion of the post-Helsinki strawman paper
3. Monday 19 September, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom>
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom>
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2016.0.7752 / Virus Database: 4647/12883 - Release Date: 08/26/16 _______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom>
Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Dear Carlos Raúl, Thank you so much for the information. I understand the ccNSO has been involved in the past and I hope it continues to be this way. Best, Rosalía
On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org> wrote:
Dear Rosalia,
https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-unct.htm <https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-unct.htm>
I recommend a quick look backwards to all previous work of the ccNSO on the issue. Your will realise that nobody is excluding any present or past input of the ccNSo.
Cheers
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 26 Aug 2016, at 10:52, Rosalia Morales wrote:
Dear All,
Thank you for including me in this working group. I am looking forward to contributing to the discussion and views of ccTLDs.
As a new member to this WG and trying to catch up with the discussion, I share the concern of others in this thread related to the open participation of all stakeholders in the decision making process during the PDP. For example, according to Susan´s email:
¨In addition, as Heather has pointed out, the issue of geo names in future “rounds” of New gTLDs also already within the Charter of the Subsequent Procedures PDP which has a large number of participants (133) and is not limited to the GNSO but includes members of the ALAC, GAC and unaffiliated individuals. I believe members of the ccNSO also already participate (even if not identified as such on the list of participants), since many ccTLD operators also have an interest in new gTLDs. ¨.
If the process works as mentioned by Susan above, I don´t see a formal and accountable representation of the ccNSO in this discussion. I strongly believe the ccNSO needs to contribute and be included formally in all future discussions.
I would greatly appreciate if other members of this group could help me answer my concern of the formal representation of the ccNSO in the PDP process.
Best, Rosalía
On Aug 26, 2016, at 8:34 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Dear Timo, <>
The GAC placed the Country Name and ISO 3166 III ban into the AGB in the first place – so no worries: They will make themselves heard. They expressed a very clear desire in Helsinki that somebody should please come up with a policy recommendation: THEN they mull about it. GAC is not known well as CREATING policy: it mostly comments on recommendations.
The ccTLDs. They could have spoken up IN THIS WG. They didn’t. If I would put myself in their shoes and if I were of protectionist composition I would make a simple demand: The prerequisite to the delegation of a ISO 3166 III code elements or a Country & Territory name (or their short form) would be like with all other geo names the “letter of non-objection” of the relevant government institution; PLUS the absolution of the national ccTLD manager! This way to “mitigate” your “risk” (which is selling fewer ccTLD registrations) you can simply require the applicant to employ YOUR services – or put them at risk of getting your absolution. And if you were say “.tr” and Turkey wanted “.turkey”: Wouldn’t the ccTLD operator the almost natural choice as gTLD operator?
I know that you personally would prefer to treat .est as “ccTLD” – so you can run it like “.ee”. This is just not going to happen – and I spoke with a number of GAC members who are ON THE ROPES to prevent that: ccTLDs are two letter codes – and basta. If we now introduce SOME three letter codes as ccTLDs – while others are gTLDs – the chaos would be perfect. The Internet user knows all “.ll” are ccTLDs – and everything else is a gTLD.
All my personal opinions, but I am in this circus since 2005 and co-founded a geo based gTLD (and create the applicant for another one right now) so I thought about this for a long time.
Alexander
From: Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee <mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee> <mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee <mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee>>] Sent: Freitag, 26. August 2016 17:15 To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Cc: ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
I am sorry for drawing equal sign between gNSO and gTLD operators. Thank you Alexander for correcting me!
But my point still remains gNSO is not balanced in this matter and, as you admitted, is profit oriented. It is lacking the voice of ccNSO and GAG that have direct issues with releasing country names and country codes for commercial use. Sorry for repeating my self so much but CWG.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee/> <http://www.internet.ee/ <http://www.internet.ee/>>
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>> wrote:
Timo, <>
It doesn’t matter whether or not ccTLDs are run as non-profits; or gTLDs are run as for-profits:
Yes, the ccNSO is made up of ccTLDs operators.
No, the gNSO is not made up of only gTLD operators! They represent themselves in the RySG (Registry Stakeholder Group). But that is just ONE of many stakeholders with a seat at the table of the gNSO:
Commercial Stakeholder Group Commercial Business Users Intellectual Property Internet Service Providers
Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Non-Commercial Users Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns
Registrars Stakeholder Group
Registries Stakeholder Group <- THAT’s the RySG!
So while most gNSO stakeholders are indeed “for-profit” orientated; it’s a completely different setup than the ccNSO. And the gTLD registries are just one amongst many stakeholders.
Alexander
From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>>] On Behalf Of Timo Võhmar Sent: Freitag, 26. August 2016 16:11 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>>> Cc: ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Hi Susan
Yes I referred to gNSO with this statement as gTLDs are mostly run for profit and ccTLDs by non-profits with other ideals in mind. Of course there are exceptions to this rule on both sides. Balanced CWG is the way forward.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee/> <http://www.internet.ee/ <http://www.internet.ee/>>
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>>> wrote:
Hi Timo Could you explain please who and what you mean by “give the power of decision over these strings to group with solely commercial goals in mind”? From the context it seems you refer to the GNSO, so I would like to be sure if I understand you correctly. thanks Susan
From: Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee <mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee> <mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee <mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee>>] Sent: 26 August 2016 13:04 To: Susan Payne Cc: Annebeth Lange; Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Hi,
First of all thank you all for accepting me to this CWG - this has been my first experience with such processes. It has been educational.
Anyhow, I would like to express my strong disagreement with the recommendation to even mention GNSO PDP as a viable solution to move forward with these issues. In my view this can be solved only in the balanced cross community workgroup with representatives from all the necessary groups (ccnso, gnso, gac etc). WIth that said I am very sad that this CWG was not able to achieve more. We are still talking about country names and codes here so for me it seems the worst idea possible to give the power of decision over these strings to group with solely commercial goals in mind. Please do not do that!
Let's specifiy what was lacking with this CWG and propose to form new one.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee/> <http://www.internet.ee/ <http://www.internet.ee/>>
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>>> wrote: I would like to add my thanks to Joke for her excellent draft progress report. Thanks also to Heather and Annebeth for their comments and suggestions – here are a couple from me.
Regarding the recommendations section I note that in Annebeth’s version, which I worked from as I thought it was the latest, some of the recommendations Heather proposed were not included. In full, those recommendations are:
In light of the need for further work, the complexity of the issue at hand, the aforementioned inconsistencies between various ICANN policies, and the limited mandate of the CWG on the use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs, the CWG recommends that:
1) The ICANN community consolidate all policy efforts relating to geographic names (as that term has traditionally very broadly been defined in the ICANN environment to this point) to enable in-depth analyses and discussions on all aspects related to all geographic-related names at all levels of the DNS. This is the only way, in our view, to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable.
2) Future work should take place with the authority of a policy development process under ICANN’s Bylaws, with a clearly drafted Charter or scope of works that sets out how conclusions and recommendations will inform that policy development process. This addresses a key deficiency of this CWG, as it has not been made clear how the group’s work can or will be incorporated in policy-making pursuant to ICANN’s Bylaws. In this regard, we note that the use of geographic names in future new gTLDs falls within the scope of issues to be addressed by the now-formed and operative GNSO PDP on Subsequent Procedures.
3) Future policy development work must facilitate all-inclusive dialogue to ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity to participate. Again, we believe that this is the only way to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable.
I am strongly in favour of including these recommendations. If we are to recommend that all policy work on geographic terms be consolidated to ensure harmonisation (which I agree that it should) then I think we must also address the question of where that consolidation should happen and make our recommendation. The PDP has a formalised status under the ICANN Bylaws and a clear process. The treatment of the outcomes of the PDP by the Board are also clearly set out, with a process of consultation to be followed where the Board determines that the recommendations “are not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN”.
In addition, as Heather has pointed out, the issue of geo names in future “rounds” of New gTLDs also already within the Charter of the Subsequent Procedures PDP which has a large number of participants (133) and is not limited to the GNSO but includes members of the ALAC, GAC and unaffiliated individuals. I believe members of the ccNSO also already participate (even if not identified as such on the list of participants), since many ccTLD operators also have an interest in new gTLDs. The PDP work has been underway for some months considering overarching issues, and the working group is now breaking into work tracks to focus on specific groupings of related issues. Country and territory names fall within the Legal/Regulatory work track and would sensibly be dealt with by that work track when it considers other, related, issues around the reservation of names, including other geographic names which are not within the scope of this CWG, and names with other sensitivity (which are not geo names).
thanks
Susan
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd
E: susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> D: +44 20 7421 8255 <tel:%2B44%2020%207421%208255 <tel:%2B44%2020%207421%208255>> T: +44 20 7421 8299 <tel:%2B44%2020%207421%208299 <tel:%2B44%2020%207421%208299>> M: +44 7971 661175 <tel:%2B44%207971%20661175 <tel:%2B44%207971%20661175>>
Valideus August Public Holiday Opening Hours The Valideus offices will be closed for a UK public holiday on Monday 29th August, reopening on Tuesday 30th August 2016.
From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>>] On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange Sent: 24 August 2016 08:24 To: Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear Joke, dear Heather, CWG colleagues,
I join Heather in thanking Joke for her excellent work in producing this draft for a progress report. I have gone through it with special attention to your comments and input, Heather, and enclose a version with my questions and comments.
I encourage my fellow colleagues to read the document and give input. We have to decide how to go forward with this, and it would be great to have opinions and suggestions from WG members.
Kind regards, Annebeth
From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>>> on behalf of Heather Forrest Date: Wednesday 24 August 2016 at 04:40 To: Joke Braeken, "ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>>" Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear Joke, CWG colleagues,
Tremendous thanks to Joke for her work on producing the first draft of our status report and recommendations, particularly while Steve Chan recovered on medical leave and Emily Barabas transitioned in temporarily as GNSO support staff.
In my view this paper is a good start, and there is a bit more we can do. It is important that we keep this document relatively short, clear and to the point - otherwise we risk losing the community's attention. With this in mind, I propose that we add footnotes and names of earlier documents, groups, etc. to ensure the community has the complete picture of the work in this area (as indeed this is one of our key justifications for terminating our efforts - the multiplicity of policy initiatives on geo names) while streamlining this progress report by pushing the reader to those other documents for more detail/substance.
I also suggest that we amend references to ISO 3166 from "list" to "standard", as that is a lesson we've very helpfully learned from Jaap.
Finally, I believe we should be more clear and direct on our recommendations at the end, as ultimately we're in the best position to advise as to what should happen next and, crucially, what is needed for that to succeed (ie, we know best what our deficiencies were as a CWG, and have a view as to how to fix them).
I look forward to our meeting next week and the opportunity to discuss this progress report in more detail.
Best wishes,
Heather
From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>> <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>>> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 21:39 To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear all,
A short reminder that the next call for the CWG-UCTN WG is scheduled for next week Monday 29 August, at 21 UTC.
You are kindly invited to provide us with your input, comments and feedback on the attached strawman paper by the end of this week.
Thank you!
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>>
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO <https://twitter.com/ccNSO> <https://twitter.com/ccNSO <https://twitter.com/ccNSO>> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ <https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/> <https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ <https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/>> http://ccnso.icann.org <http://ccnso.icann.org/> <http://ccnso.icann.org/ <http://ccnso.icann.org/>>
From: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>>> Date: Friday 19 August 2016 at 11:57 To: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>>" <ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>>> Subject: post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear All,
Following the events at ICANN56 in Helsinki, staff drafted a strawman paper, as requested by the CWG-UCTN co-chairs. The attached paper
lays out the Group’s discussion to-date, and provides the working group’s conclusions and recommendations in relation to the Group’s main objective.
This document aims at generating a discussion among the group, regarding the next steps, taking into account that the main objective of the WG is to provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that is applicable across the respective SO's and AC's defining rules guiding the use of country and territory names as top-level domains that, ideally, can be applied objectively to alpha-2 and alpha-3 ISO 3166-1 codes as well as full country and territory names.
Next meetings:
1. Monday 22 August, 21 UTC.CANCELLED.
The co-chairs preferred to allow WG members sufficient time to review the post-Helsinki strawman paper, and to comment on it
2. Monday 29 August, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow. On the agenda: discussion of the post-Helsinki strawman paper
3. Monday 19 September, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>>
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO <https://twitter.com/ccNSO> <https://twitter.com/ccNSO <https://twitter.com/ccNSO>> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ <https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/> <https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ <https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/>> http://ccnso.icann.org <http://ccnso.icann.org/> <http://ccnso.icann.org/ <http://ccnso.icann.org/>>
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom>>
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom>>
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> <http://www.avg.com/ <http://www.avg.com/>> Version: 2016.0.7752 / Virus Database: 4647/12883 - Release Date: 08/26/16 _______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom>>
Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom>
Hi Timo I’m afraid I do not think your characterisation is accurate: · The characterisation of gTLDs as being for profit and ccTLDs as being non-profits is far too simplistic – probably before the new gTLD programme, but certainly after it: o Some gTLD operators would be categorised as “having other ideals”, for example .IGO/.INGO; some of the Geo TLDs who have aimed to provide a local targeted space; .Brands, many of whom had as a significant driver the protection of their brand name in order to ensure it did not fall to someone else to use in a manner which might deceive the public; o A number of ccTLDs are subject to commercial arrangements which see them operated as quasi gTLDs in what appears to be a highly profit-driven manner - .tv, .co; o .tk (also commercially exploited) has more names in its zone file than all the new gTLDs put together according to Verisign’s Domain Name Industry Brief; o A number of ccTLD operators are also the registry operators for new gTLDs. Some are also the back-end providers to other gTLD registries. The New gTLD Program has meant that the boundaries are extremely blurred; o Many, perhaps all, ccTLDs have an interest in selling more names, whether to generate revenues as profit; to pay for better infrastructure, facilities, offices, bonuses for staff, comfortable travel, whatever; to feed back into governmental coffers to help pay for wider infrastructure; and to keep themselves relevant as a ccTLD. These are all pretty “commercial” imperatives which impact, for example, on the attitude to competition in the marketplace, even if the organisation is a “non-profit”. The interests may be slightly different, but there are strong interests here. · More importantly than the above, the GNSO is not comprised purely of gTLD registry operators (for profit or otherwise). In addition to the registries and registrars (who I imagine probably work with both gTLD operators and ccTLD operators pretty indiscriminately), who make up the contracted parties, there are non-contracted parties with very different perspectives, which the House structure seeks to balance. These include IP interests, users of the internet such as ISPs and business users (as opposed to business registry operators) and a strongly engaged non-commercial stakeholder group made up of academics, civil society and others. Many of these non-contracted parties have no particular interest in, or are even arguably opposed to, gTLD registry-operator profits and many definitely have “other ideals in mind”. · PDP participation is not limited to those in the GNSO. As I already pointed out, the ALAC, GAC, unaffiliated individuals and members of the ccNSO are already participating in the Subsequent Procedures PDP and there is no limit to more joining. regards Susan From: Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee] Sent: 26 August 2016 14:11 To: Susan Payne Cc: Annebeth Lange; Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Hi Susan Yes I referred to gNSO with this statement as gTLDs are mostly run for profit and ccTLDs by non-profits with other ideals in mind. Of course there are exceptions to this rule on both sides. Balanced CWG is the way forward. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee<http://www.internet.ee> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> wrote: Hi Timo Could you explain please who and what you mean by “give the power of decision over these strings to group with solely commercial goals in mind”? From the context it seems you refer to the GNSO, so I would like to be sure if I understand you correctly. thanks Susan From: Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee<mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee>] Sent: 26 August 2016 13:04 To: Susan Payne Cc: Annebeth Lange; Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Hi, First of all thank you all for accepting me to this CWG - this has been my first experience with such processes. It has been educational. Anyhow, I would like to express my strong disagreement with the recommendation to even mention GNSO PDP as a viable solution to move forward with these issues. In my view this can be solved only in the balanced cross community workgroup with representatives from all the necessary groups (ccnso, gnso, gac etc). WIth that said I am very sad that this CWG was not able to achieve more. We are still talking about country names and codes here so for me it seems the worst idea possible to give the power of decision over these strings to group with solely commercial goals in mind. Please do not do that! Let's specifiy what was lacking with this CWG and propose to form new one. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee<http://www.internet.ee> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> wrote: I would like to add my thanks to Joke for her excellent draft progress report. Thanks also to Heather and Annebeth for their comments and suggestions – here are a couple from me. Regarding the recommendations section I note that in Annebeth’s version, which I worked from as I thought it was the latest, some of the recommendations Heather proposed were not included. In full, those recommendations are: In light of the need for further work, the complexity of the issue at hand, the aforementioned inconsistencies between various ICANN policies, and the limited mandate of the CWG on the use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs, the CWG recommends that: 1) The ICANN community consolidate all policy efforts relating to geographic names (as that term has traditionally very broadly been defined in the ICANN environment to this point) to enable in-depth analyses and discussions on all aspects related to all geographic-related names at all levels of the DNS. This is the only way, in our view, to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable. 2) Future work should take place with the authority of a policy development process under ICANN’s Bylaws, with a clearly drafted Charter or scope of works that sets out how conclusions and recommendations will inform that policy development process. This addresses a key deficiency of this CWG, as it has not been made clear how the group’s work can or will be incorporated in policy-making pursuant to ICANN’s Bylaws. In this regard, we note that the use of geographic names in future new gTLDs falls within the scope of issues to be addressed by the now-formed and operative GNSO PDP on Subsequent Procedures. 3) Future policy development work must facilitate all-inclusive dialogue to ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity to participate. Again, we believe that this is the only way to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable. I am strongly in favour of including these recommendations. If we are to recommend that all policy work on geographic terms be consolidated to ensure harmonisation (which I agree that it should) then I think we must also address the question of where that consolidation should happen and make our recommendation. The PDP has a formalised status under the ICANN Bylaws and a clear process. The treatment of the outcomes of the PDP by the Board are also clearly set out, with a process of consultation to be followed where the Board determines that the recommendations “are not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN”. In addition, as Heather has pointed out, the issue of geo names in future “rounds” of New gTLDs also already within the Charter of the Subsequent Procedures PDP which has a large number of participants (133) and is not limited to the GNSO but includes members of the ALAC, GAC and unaffiliated individuals. I believe members of the ccNSO also already participate (even if not identified as such on the list of participants), since many ccTLD operators also have an interest in new gTLDs. The PDP work has been underway for some months considering overarching issues, and the working group is now breaking into work tracks to focus on specific groupings of related issues. Country and territory names fall within the Legal/Regulatory work track and would sensibly be dealt with by that work track when it considers other, related, issues around the reservation of names, including other geographic names which are not within the scope of this CWG, and names with other sensitivity (which are not geo names). thanks Susan Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255<tel:%2B44%2020%207421%208255> T: +44 20 7421 8299<tel:%2B44%2020%207421%208299> M: +44 7971 661175<tel:%2B44%207971%20661175> Valideus August Public Holiday Opening Hours The Valideus offices will be closed for a UK public holiday on Monday 29th August, reopening on Tuesday 30th August 2016. From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange Sent: 24 August 2016 08:24 To: Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear Joke, dear Heather, CWG colleagues, I join Heather in thanking Joke for her excellent work in producing this draft for a progress report. I have gone through it with special attention to your comments and input, Heather, and enclose a version with my questions and comments. I encourage my fellow colleagues to read the document and give input. We have to decide how to go forward with this, and it would be great to have opinions and suggestions from WG members. Kind regards, Annebeth From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Heather Forrest Date: Wednesday 24 August 2016 at 04:40 To: Joke Braeken, "ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear Joke, CWG colleagues, Tremendous thanks to Joke for her work on producing the first draft of our status report and recommendations, particularly while Steve Chan recovered on medical leave and Emily Barabas transitioned in temporarily as GNSO support staff. In my view this paper is a good start, and there is a bit more we can do. It is important that we keep this document relatively short, clear and to the point - otherwise we risk losing the community's attention. With this in mind, I propose that we add footnotes and names of earlier documents, groups, etc. to ensure the community has the complete picture of the work in this area (as indeed this is one of our key justifications for terminating our efforts - the multiplicity of policy initiatives on geo names) while streamlining this progress report by pushing the reader to those other documents for more detail/substance. I also suggest that we amend references to ISO 3166 from "list" to "standard", as that is a lesson we've very helpfully learned from Jaap. Finally, I believe we should be more clear and direct on our recommendations at the end, as ultimately we're in the best position to advise as to what should happen next and, crucially, what is needed for that to succeed (ie, we know best what our deficiencies were as a CWG, and have a view as to how to fix them). I look forward to our meeting next week and the opportunity to discuss this progress report in more detail. Best wishes, Heather ________________________________ From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 21:39 To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear all, A short reminder that the next call for the CWG-UCTN WG is scheduled for next week Monday 29 August, at 21 UTC. You are kindly invited to provide us with your input, comments and feedback on the attached strawman paper by the end of this week. Thank you! 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 From: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>> Date: Friday 19 August 2016 at 11:57 To: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>" <ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>> Subject: post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear All, Following the events at ICANN56 in Helsinki, staff drafted a strawman paper, as requested by the CWG-UCTN co-chairs. The attached paper lays out the Group’s discussion to-date, and provides the working group’s conclusions and recommendations in relation to the Group’s main objective. This document aims at generating a discussion among the group, regarding the next steps, taking into account that the main objective of the WG is to provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that is applicable across the respective SO's and AC's defining rules guiding the use of country and territory names as top-level domains that, ideally, can be applied objectively to alpha-2 and alpha-3 ISO 3166-1 codes as well as full country and territory names. Next meetings: 1. Monday 22 August, 21 UTC.CANCELLED. The co-chairs preferred to allow WG members sufficient time to review the post-Helsinki strawman paper, and to comment on it 2. Monday 29 August, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow. On the agenda: discussion of the post-Helsinki strawman paper 3. Monday 19 September, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow 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 _______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Dear Timo, first of all many thanks for your suggestions. It would be good to take a step back and recognise that 1. The ccNSO already spent more than 2 years thinking about this, and it was their report that suggested create the present Working Group together with the GNSO to look for a general framework (instead of restrictive lists of reserved names that I´m afraid will be never complete. 2. The GAC has also spent quite some time on Geographic names, without any conclusive reports and/or recommendations. 3. This is so to say the 3rd effort open to all. So please join us in ur next call Best regards Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 26 Aug 2016, at 6:04, Timo Võhmar wrote:
Hi,
First of all thank you all for accepting me to this CWG - this has been my first experience with such processes. It has been educational.
Anyhow, I would like to express my strong disagreement with the recommendation to even mention GNSO PDP as a viable solution to move forward with these issues. In my view this can be solved only in the balanced cross community workgroup with representatives from all the necessary groups (ccnso, gnso, gac etc). WIth that said I am very sad that this CWG was not able to achieve more. We are still talking about country names and codes here so for me it seems the worst idea possible to give the power of decision over these strings to group with solely commercial goals in mind. Please do not do that!
Let's specifiy what was lacking with this CWG and propose to form new one.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
I would like to add my thanks to Joke for her excellent draft progress report. Thanks also to Heather and Annebeth for their comments and suggestions – here are a couple from me.
Regarding the recommendations section I note that in Annebeth’s version, which I worked from as I thought it was the latest, some of the recommendations Heather proposed were not included. In full, those recommendations are:
In light of the need for further work, the complexity of the issue at hand, the aforementioned inconsistencies between various ICANN policies, and the limited mandate of the CWG on the use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs, the CWG recommends that:
1) The ICANN community consolidate all policy efforts relating to geographic names (as that term has traditionally very broadly been defined in the ICANN environment to this point) to enable in-depth analyses and discussions on all aspects related to all geographic-related names at all levels of the DNS. This is the only way, in our view, to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable.
2) Future work should take place with the authority of a policy development process under ICANN’s Bylaws, with a clearly drafted Charter or scope of works that sets out how conclusions and recommendations will inform that policy development process. This addresses a key deficiency of this CWG, as it has not been made clear how the group’s work can or will be incorporated in policy-making pursuant to ICANN’s Bylaws. In this regard, we note that the use of geographic names in future new gTLDs falls within the scope of issues to be addressed by the now-formed and operative GNSO PDP on Subsequent Procedures.
3) Future policy development work must facilitate all-inclusive dialogue to ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity to participate. Again, we believe that this is the only way to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable.
I am strongly in favour of including these recommendations. If we are to recommend that all policy work on geographic terms be consolidated to ensure harmonisation (which I agree that it should) then I think we must also address the question of where that consolidation should happen and make our recommendation. The PDP has a formalised status under the ICANN Bylaws and a clear process. The treatment of the outcomes of the PDP by the Board are also clearly set out, with a process of consultation to be followed where the Board determines that the recommendations “are not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN”.
In addition, as Heather has pointed out, the issue of geo names in future “rounds” of New gTLDs also already within the Charter of the Subsequent Procedures PDP which has a large number of participants (133) and is not limited to the GNSO but includes members of the ALAC, GAC and unaffiliated individuals. I believe members of the ccNSO also already participate (even if not identified as such on the list of participants), since many ccTLD operators also have an interest in new gTLDs. The PDP work has been underway for some months considering overarching issues, and the working group is now breaking into work tracks to focus on specific groupings of related issues. Country and territory names fall within the Legal/Regulatory work track and would sensibly be dealt with by that work track when it considers other, related, issues around the reservation of names, including *other* geographic names which are not within the scope of this CWG, and names with other sensitivity (which are not geo names).
thanks
Susan
*Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy* | *Valideus Ltd * E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
*Valideus August Public Holiday Opening Hours*
The Valideus offices will be closed for a UK public holiday on Monday 29th August, reopening on Tuesday 30th August 2016.
*From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@ icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Annebeth Lange *Sent:* 24 August 2016 08:24 *To:* Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear Joke, dear Heather, CWG colleagues,
I join Heather in thanking Joke for her excellent work in producing this draft for a progress report. I have gone through it with special attention to your comments and input, Heather, and enclose a version with my questions and comments.
I encourage my fellow colleagues to read the document and give input. We have to decide how to go forward with this, and it would be great to have opinions and suggestions from WG members.
Kind regards,
Annebeth
*From: *<ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Heather Forrest *Date: *Wednesday 24 August 2016 at 04:40 *To: *Joke Braeken, "ctn-crosscom@icann.org" *Subject: *Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear Joke, CWG colleagues,
Tremendous thanks to Joke for her work on producing the first draft of our status report and recommendations, particularly while Steve Chan recovered on medical leave and Emily Barabas transitioned in temporarily as GNSO support staff.
In my view this paper is a good start, and there is a bit more we can do. It is important that we keep this document relatively short, clear and to the point - otherwise we risk losing the community's attention. With this in mind, I propose that we add footnotes and names of earlier documents, groups, etc. to ensure the community has the complete picture of the work in this area (as indeed this is one of our key justifications for terminating our efforts - the multiplicity of policy initiatives on geo names) while streamlining this progress report by pushing the reader to those other documents for more detail/substance.
I also suggest that we amend references to ISO 3166 from "list" to "standard", as that is a lesson we've very helpfully learned from Jaap.
Finally, I believe we should be more clear and direct on our recommendations at the end, as ultimately we're in the best position to advise as to what should happen next and, crucially, what is needed for that to succeed (ie, we know best what our deficiencies were as a CWG, and have a view as to how to fix them).
I look forward to our meeting next week and the opportunity to discuss this progress report in more detail.
Best wishes,
Heather
------------------------------
*From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 23, 2016 21:39 *To:* ctn-crosscom@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear all,
A short reminder that the next call for the CWG-UCTN WG is scheduled for next week Monday 29 August, at 21 UTC.
You are kindly invited to provide us with your input, comments and feedback on the attached strawman paper by the end of this week.
Thank you!
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO
Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/
*From: *Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> *Date: *Friday 19 August 2016 at 11:57 *To: *"ctn-crosscom@icann.org" <ctn-crosscom@icann.org> *Subject: *post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear All,
Following the events at ICANN56 in Helsinki, staff drafted a strawman paper, as requested by the CWG-UCTN co-chairs. The attached paper
lays out the Group’s discussion to-date, and provides the working group’s conclusions and recommendations in relation to the Group’s main objective.
This document aims at generating a discussion among the group, regarding the next steps, taking into account that the main objective of the WG is to provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that is applicable across the respective SO's and AC's defining rules guiding the use of country and territory names as top-level domains that, ideally, can be applied objectively to alpha-2 and alpha-3 ISO 3166-1 codes as well as full country and territory names.
*Next meetings:*
1. *Monday 22 August, 21 UTC.*CANCELLED.
The co-chairs preferred to allow WG members sufficient time to review the post-Helsinki strawman paper, and to comment on it
2. *Monday 29 August, 21 UTC.* A calendar invite will follow. On the agenda: discussion of the post-Helsinki strawman paper
3. *Monday 19 September, 21 UTC.* A calendar invite will follow
Best regards,
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO
Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Thank you Carlos for your kind and calming words! I still feel that taking this issue to GNSO is bad idea from the governmental and ccTLD perspective. I do understand Alexander's and Susan's standpoints and respect their opinions, but I disagree. I do not feel that my and Estonia's dream of .est as ccTLD is impossible - yet. Having also spoken with some government advisers and seeing that some actually understand that for registrants and internet users there is no difference between ccTLD and gTLD, the only thing that matters to them is what the tld stands for in their mind. The difference between ccTLD, gTLD, new gTLD, geoTLD is the delegation process and who is in control in the end. This is important only to us - TLD operators, ICANN, governments in the case at hand and businesses trying to protect their brand or make money. I am sure there are GAC members that believe that ccTLD stands for two letter TLD. And I know there are those that feel differently. There is and will be no chaos - lets not talk nonsense. I do feel a bit alone and outnumbered here - thank you Rosalia for speaking up. I believe that GNSO PDP group is biased. We should discuss what was lacking in this CWG and try to fix that with new CWG interation. So if GNSO PDP suggestion is pushed in the report, I ask that alternative solution with balanced cross-community working group is also suggested. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org> wrote:
Dear Timo,
first of all many thanks for your suggestions. It would be good to take a step back and recognise that
1. The ccNSO already spent more than 2 years thinking about this, and it was their report that suggested create the present Working Group together with the GNSO to look for a general framework (instead of restrictive lists of reserved names that I´m afraid will be never complete. 2. The GAC has also spent quite some time on Geographic names, without any conclusive reports and/or recommendations. 3. This is so to say the 3rd effort open to all. So please join us in ur next call
Best regards
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
Dear Timo, I can resonate with your idea and concern; which I try to summarize: * .est operated by the .ee ccTLD operator should work identical to .ee! All the same rules and procedures and transaction commands. * You do not want to pay transaction fees to ICANN: For what? You don´t pay them for .ee, why for .est? * The data projection policy of the EU is SIGNIFICANT more restrict than those of the U.S.: You don’t want the gTLD ICANN WHOIS requirements * Much of the other policy framework like “reserved names” should be identical to the existing one of .ee – not some policy developed by other nations / stakeholders. I get all that – and most in this group get it, too. BUT! I was at the Helsinki meeting, and spoke to a multitude of GAC members: Some of them are STEADFAST objecting the notion of the introduction of three letter ccTLDs. And I am running around and talk to GAC reps since 2005 (first to lobby for .berlin – which initially was seen as a “danger”; then to lobby for .gay: which a few nations found even more dangerous) and you can be rest assured: If a few powerful and vigilant GAC reps have put smth into their minds: You won’t get it out; especially not without showing up in person. ICANN is sadly not about creating the BEST and MOST SENSEFUL solutions: It is about give and take and arrive at SOME solution. There is currently a BAN of ISO 3166 Alpha 3 codes (and territory names) a TLD’s in the AGB. The gNSO works off the 2012 AGB. If the ban is not lifted – it just stays in there. If it stays in there you won’t get .est. The ban has been introduced by the GAC. The GAC works not with majorities but rather only adopts policy only if NO ONE OBJECTS. Right now a number of countries DO object the notion of three letter ccTLD’s. If we (the CW Group and or the gNSO) suggest to create these three letter cTLDs: All what happens is that the GAC doesn’t agree and the ban will stay. The maximum the ccTLD operators can achieve would be an added letter of non-objection by the ccTD manager: So at least you can be rest assured that your Information Technology Ministry (or ministry for commerce, interior) won’t give away your three letter code against your will. You are in full control. All fine. Alexander From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Timo Võhmar Sent: Samstag, 27. August 2016 00:40 To: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org> Cc: ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Thank you Carlos for your kind and calming words! I still feel that taking this issue to GNSO is bad idea from the governmental and ccTLD perspective. I do understand Alexander's and Susan's standpoints and respect their opinions, but I disagree. I do not feel that my and Estonia's dream of .est as ccTLD is impossible - yet. Having also spoken with some government advisers and seeing that some actually understand that for registrants and internet users there is no difference between ccTLD and gTLD, the only thing that matters to them is what the tld stands for in their mind. The difference between ccTLD, gTLD, new gTLD, geoTLD is the delegation process and who is in control in the end. This is important only to us - TLD operators, ICANN, governments in the case at hand and businesses trying to protect their brand or make money. I am sure there are GAC members that believe that ccTLD stands for two letter TLD. And I know there are those that feel differently. There is and will be no chaos - lets not talk nonsense. I do feel a bit alone and outnumbered here - thank you Rosalia for speaking up. I believe that GNSO PDP group is biased. We should discuss what was lacking in this CWG and try to fix that with new CWG interation. So if GNSO PDP suggestion is pushed in the report, I ask that alternative solution with balanced cross-community working group is also suggested. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> > wrote: Dear Timo, first of all many thanks for your suggestions. It would be good to take a step back and recognise that 1. The ccNSO already spent more than 2 years thinking about this, and it was their report that suggested create the present Working Group together with the GNSO to look for a general framework (instead of restrictive lists of reserved names that I´m afraid will be never complete. 2. The GAC has also spent quite some time on Geographic names, without any conclusive reports and/or recommendations. 3. This is so to say the 3rd effort open to all. So please join us in ur next call Best regards Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 <tel:%2B506%208837%207176> Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
Dear Alexander, Just a short comment Money is not the problem here. The ICANN regulation and contract is the show stopper for us regarding .est. Estonian government has to have full control over what kind of personal data is collected, how it is handled and how to protect it and we as a tld operator need to have control over registration and partner policy. So to but it bluntly the solution you are fighting for is worse for us than current situation with total blockage as this leaves hope for the result suitable for tld standing for a country. We cannot use gtld for e-Estonia initiative without breaking the ICANN contract. I have not yet met a GAC member with such strong opinions against giving governments full control over their country codes and names as TLD as you describe. But if there are such I will meet and talk to them to get better idea of the argumentaion because what you are saying goes against logic from a government's perspective. As there might be those in GAC that object against three letter cctld's there are also those that object against lifting the ban all together. So its a challenge any way you look at it. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Dear Timo,
I can resonate with your idea and concern; which I try to summarize:
· .est operated by the .ee ccTLD operator should work identical to .ee! All the same rules and procedures and transaction commands.
· You do not want to pay transaction fees to ICANN: For what? You don´t pay them for .ee, why for .est?
· The data projection policy of the EU is SIGNIFICANT more restrict than those of the U.S.: You don’t want the gTLD ICANN WHOIS requirements
· Much of the other policy framework like “reserved names” should be identical to the existing one of .ee – not some policy developed by other nations / stakeholders.
I get all that – and most in this group get it, too.
BUT!
I was at the Helsinki meeting, and spoke to a multitude of GAC members: Some of them are STEADFAST objecting the notion of the introduction of three letter ccTLDs. And I am running around and talk to GAC reps since 2005 (first to lobby for .berlin – which initially was seen as a “danger”; then to lobby for .gay: which a few nations found even more dangerous) and you can be rest assured: If a few powerful and vigilant GAC reps have put smth into their minds: You won’t get it out; especially not without showing up in person.
ICANN is sadly not about creating the BEST and MOST SENSEFUL solutions: It is about give and take and arrive at SOME solution.
There is currently a BAN of ISO 3166 Alpha 3 codes (and territory names) a TLD’s in the AGB. The gNSO works off the 2012 AGB. If the ban is not lifted – it just stays in there. If it stays in there you won’t get .est. The ban has been introduced by the GAC. The GAC works not with majorities but rather only adopts policy only if NO ONE OBJECTS. Right now a number of countries DO object the notion of three letter ccTLD’s. If we (the CW Group and or the gNSO) suggest to create these three letter cTLDs: All what happens is that the GAC doesn’t agree and the ban will stay.
The maximum the ccTLD operators can achieve would be an added letter of non-objection by the ccTD manager: So at least you can be rest assured that your Information Technology Ministry (or ministry for commerce, interior) won’t give away your three letter code against your will. You are in full control. All fine.
Alexander
*From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@ icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Timo Võhmar *Sent:* Samstag, 27. August 2016 00:40 *To:* Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org> *Cc:* ctn-crosscom@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Thank you Carlos for your kind and calming words!
I still feel that taking this issue to GNSO is bad idea from the governmental and ccTLD perspective. I do understand Alexander's and Susan's standpoints and respect their opinions, but I disagree.
I do not feel that my and Estonia's dream of .est as ccTLD is impossible - yet. Having also spoken with some government advisers and seeing that some actually understand that for registrants and internet users there is no difference between ccTLD and gTLD, the only thing that matters to them is what the tld stands for in their mind. The difference between ccTLD, gTLD, new gTLD, geoTLD is the delegation process and who is in control in the end. This is important only to us - TLD operators, ICANN, governments in the case at hand and businesses trying to protect their brand or make money. I am sure there are GAC members that believe that ccTLD stands for two letter TLD. And I know there are those that feel differently. There is and will be no chaos - lets not talk nonsense.
I do feel a bit alone and outnumbered here - thank you Rosalia for speaking up. I believe that GNSO PDP group is biased. We should discuss what was lacking in this CWG and try to fix that with new CWG interation. So if GNSO PDP suggestion is pushed in the report, I ask that alternative solution with balanced cross-community working group is also suggested.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar
Head of development
Estonian Internet Foundation
www.internet.ee
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org> wrote:
Dear Timo,
first of all many thanks for your suggestions. It would be good to take a step back and recognise that
1. The ccNSO already spent more than 2 years thinking about this, and it was their report that suggested create the present Working Group together with the GNSO to look for a general framework (instead of restrictive lists of reserved names that I´m afraid will be never complete. 2. The GAC has also spent quite some time on Geographic names, without any conclusive reports and/or recommendations. 3. This is so to say the 3rd effort open to all. So please join us in ur next call
Best regards
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Hello Timo, As a non-for-profit GEO TLD Registry I see GEOs to be stuck between ccTLD and the rest of new gTLD world. Most GEOs have names of capital cities, so we can not "make money" without responsibility before the Mayor's offices (and local governments) of the biggest cities of our countries. P.s: after all most CCTLDs charge for domains and do not give it for free. P.P.s: with 3 letters everything was messed up years ago (Comoro Islands) and some more were delegated in the last round ... Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580 skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (Moscow)
On Aug 27, 2016, at 00:39, Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar@internet.ee> wrote:
Thank you Carlos for your kind and calming words!
I still feel that taking this issue to GNSO is bad idea from the governmental and ccTLD perspective. I do understand Alexander's and Susan's standpoints and respect their opinions, but I disagree.
I do not feel that my and Estonia's dream of .est as ccTLD is impossible - yet. Having also spoken with some government advisers and seeing that some actually understand that for registrants and internet users there is no difference between ccTLD and gTLD, the only thing that matters to them is what the tld stands for in their mind. The difference between ccTLD, gTLD, new gTLD, geoTLD is the delegation process and who is in control in the end. This is important only to us - TLD operators, ICANN, governments in the case at hand and businesses trying to protect their brand or make money. I am sure there are GAC members that believe that ccTLD stands for two letter TLD. And I know there are those that feel differently. There is and will be no chaos - lets not talk nonsense.
I do feel a bit alone and outnumbered here - thank you Rosalia for speaking up. I believe that GNSO PDP group is biased. We should discuss what was lacking in this CWG and try to fix that with new CWG interation. So if GNSO PDP suggestion is pushed in the report, I ask that alternative solution with balanced cross-community working group is also suggested.
Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org> wrote: Dear Timo,
first of all many thanks for your suggestions. It would be good to take a step back and recognise that
1. The ccNSO already spent more than 2 years thinking about this, and it was their report that suggested create the present Working Group together with the GNSO to look for a general framework (instead of restrictive lists of reserved names that I´m afraid will be never complete. 2. The GAC has also spent quite some time on Geographic names, without any conclusive reports and/or recommendations. 3. This is so to say the 3rd effort open to all. So please join us in ur next call
Best regards
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Thank you Maxim for your comment! I happen to share the opinion that the way geo tlds were delegated is not good - it gives an illusion of control to governments and puts the tld operator in unfair position in comparison to cc and gtlds. But let's not open this can right now. In my humble opinion keeping only the two separate delegation tracks - ccTLD and gTLD is all that is needed. Giving local governments a reason to choose whether to keep a country code, geo or country name under its control as cctld or giving it up to the wild as gTLD should be the problem to find an answer to. not for profit does not have to mean charity - in most cases these are self financed organisations that have no other means of income than domain registrations. not for profit means we do not charge more than we need to sustainably run the organisation. .com is history, today we have list of three letter country codes that are blocked for everyone and our goal was to find a solution that would enable to put these in use. All as ccTLDs or gTLD will probably not pass, the first round's geo TLD model is flawed at least in some minds and you seem to confirm that. Unfortunately we did not reach the goal. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Timo, > > As a non-for-profit GEO TLD Registry I see GEOs to be stuck between ccTLD > and the rest of new gTLD world. > > Most GEOs have names of capital cities, so we can not "make money" without > responsibility before the Mayor's offices (and local governments) of the > biggest cities > of our countries. > > P.s: after all most CCTLDs charge for domains and do not give it for free. > > P.P.s: with 3 letters everything was messed up years ago (Comoro Islands) > and some more were delegated in the last round ... > > Sincerely Yours, > > Maxim Alzoba > Special projects manager, > International Relations Department, > FAITID > > m. +7 916 6761580 > skype oldfrogger > > Current UTC offset: +3.00 (Moscow) > > > On Aug 27, 2016, at 00:39, Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar@internet.ee> wrote: > > > > Thank you Carlos for your kind and calming words! > > > > I still feel that taking this issue to GNSO is bad idea from the > governmental and ccTLD perspective. I do understand Alexander's and Susan's > standpoints and respect their opinions, but I disagree. > > > > I do not feel that my and Estonia's dream of .est as ccTLD is impossible > - yet. Having also spoken with some government advisers and seeing that > some actually understand that for registrants and internet users there is > no difference between ccTLD and gTLD, the only thing that matters to them > is what the tld stands for in their mind. The difference between ccTLD, > gTLD, new gTLD, geoTLD is the delegation process and who is in control in > the end. This is important only to us - TLD operators, ICANN, governments > in the case at hand and businesses trying to protect their brand or make > money. I am sure there are GAC members that believe that ccTLD stands for > two letter TLD. And I know there are those that feel differently. There is > and will be no chaos - lets not talk nonsense. > > > > I do feel a bit alone and outnumbered here - thank you Rosalia for > speaking up. I believe that GNSO PDP group is biased. We should discuss > what was lacking in this CWG and try to fix that with new CWG interation. > So if GNSO PDP suggestion is pushed in the report, I ask that alternative > solution with balanced cross-community working group is also suggested. > > > > Best Regards, > > Timo Võhmar > > Head of development > > Estonian Internet Foundation > > www.internet.ee > > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. < > crg@isoc-cr.org> wrote: > > Dear Timo, > > > > first of all many thanks for your suggestions. It would be good to take > a step back and recognise that > > > > 1. The ccNSO already spent more than 2 years thinking about this, and it > was their report that suggested create the present Working Group together > with the GNSO to look for a general framework (instead of restrictive lists > of reserved names that I´m afraid will be never complete. > > 2. The GAC has also spent quite some time on Geographic names, without > any conclusive reports and/or recommendations. > > 3. This is so to say the 3rd effort open to all. So please join us in ur > next call > > > > Best regards > > > > > > Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez > > +506 8837 7176 > > Skype: carlos.raulg > > Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ctn-crosscom mailing list > > Ctn-crosscom@icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom > > > > >
Hi Timo, I agree that GEOs were deployed with issues, but we should not mix local governments and big ones (latter have reps in GAC). In my opinion we have situation where both sides a biased (one is protecting status quo, and the other is trying to shift the focus point). And it looks like a conflict of interests (GNSO with desire to allow as much as possible and CCTLDs & GAC with desire to keep more that it is possible :) IMHO As a CWG we do not have power to rule this out, all we can it to produce clearly visible result (paper with options and outcomes), which will help with the next steps for the rest of the community. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580 skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (Moscow)
On Aug 29, 2016, at 23:36, Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar@internet.ee> wrote:
Thank you Maxim for your comment!
I happen to share the opinion that the way geo tlds were delegated is not good - it gives an illusion of control to governments and puts the tld operator in unfair position in comparison to cc and gtlds. But let's not open this can right now. In my humble opinion keeping only the two separate delegation tracks - ccTLD and gTLD is all that is needed. Giving local governments a reason to choose whether to keep a country code, geo or country name under its control as cctld or giving it up to the wild as gTLD should be the problem to find an answer to.
not for profit does not have to mean charity - in most cases these are self financed organisations that have no other means of income than domain registrations. not for profit means we do not charge more than we need to sustainably run the organisation.
.com is history, today we have list of three letter country codes that are blocked for everyone and our goal was to find a solution that would enable to put these in use. All as ccTLDs or gTLD will probably not pass, the first round's geo TLD model is flawed at least in some minds and you seem to confirm that. Unfortunately we did not reach the goal.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Timo,
As a non-for-profit GEO TLD Registry I see GEOs to be stuck between ccTLD and the rest of new gTLD world.
Most GEOs have names of capital cities, so we can not "make money" without responsibility before the Mayor's offices (and local governments) of the biggest cities of our countries.
P.s: after all most CCTLDs charge for domains and do not give it for free.
P.P.s: with 3 letters everything was messed up years ago (Comoro Islands) and some more were delegated in the last round ...
Sincerely Yours,
Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID
m. +7 916 6761580 skype oldfrogger
Current UTC offset: +3.00 (Moscow)
On Aug 27, 2016, at 00:39, Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar@internet.ee> wrote:
Thank you Carlos for your kind and calming words!
I still feel that taking this issue to GNSO is bad idea from the governmental and ccTLD perspective. I do understand Alexander's and Susan's standpoints and respect their opinions, but I disagree.
I do not feel that my and Estonia's dream of .est as ccTLD is impossible - yet. Having also spoken with some government advisers and seeing that some actually understand that for registrants and internet users there is no difference between ccTLD and gTLD, the only thing that matters to them is what the tld stands for in their mind. The difference between ccTLD, gTLD, new gTLD, geoTLD is the delegation process and who is in control in the end. This is important only to us - TLD operators, ICANN, governments in the case at hand and businesses trying to protect their brand or make money. I am sure there are GAC members that believe that ccTLD stands for two letter TLD. And I know there are those that feel differently. There is and will be no chaos - lets not talk nonsense.
I do feel a bit alone and outnumbered here - thank you Rosalia for speaking up. I believe that GNSO PDP group is biased. We should discuss what was lacking in this CWG and try to fix that with new CWG interation. So if GNSO PDP suggestion is pushed in the report, I ask that alternative solution with balanced cross-community working group is also suggested.
Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org> wrote: Dear Timo,
first of all many thanks for your suggestions. It would be good to take a step back and recognise that
1. The ccNSO already spent more than 2 years thinking about this, and it was their report that suggested create the present Working Group together with the GNSO to look for a general framework (instead of restrictive lists of reserved names that I´m afraid will be never complete. 2. The GAC has also spent quite some time on Geographic names, without any conclusive reports and/or recommendations. 3. This is so to say the 3rd effort open to all. So please join us in ur next call
Best regards
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Hi Maxim, So do you have an idea how to resolve the geoTLD issues? Of course everyone that is invested in this issue has their own agenda and generics and country codes are logically on opposite ends on this discussion - one saying that country codes and names are what they are regardless of length and the other one is saying that only two letters deserve to stand for a country. The goal is to find some kind of a middle ground - so that the strings would be available to register as gTLDs in the next round but would be available as ccTLDs before that. I join with you with proposal that the CWG could sketch down few policy models in the final report to give an actual step forward for the next group dealing with this issue. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Timo,
I agree that GEOs were deployed with issues, but we should not mix local governments and big ones (latter have reps in GAC).
In my opinion we have situation where both sides a biased (one is protecting status quo, and the other is trying to shift the focus point).
And it looks like a conflict of interests (GNSO with desire to allow as much as possible and CCTLDs & GAC with desire to keep more that it is possible :)
IMHO As a CWG we do not have power to rule this out, all we can it to produce clearly visible result (paper with options and outcomes), which will help with the next steps for the rest of the community.
Sincerely Yours,
Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID
m. +7 916 6761580 skype oldfrogger
Current UTC offset: +3.00 (Moscow)
On Aug 29, 2016, at 23:36, Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar@internet.ee> wrote:
Thank you Maxim for your comment!
I happen to share the opinion that the way geo tlds were delegated is not good - it gives an illusion of control to governments and puts the tld operator in unfair position in comparison to cc and gtlds. But let's not open this can right now. In my humble opinion keeping only the two separate delegation tracks - ccTLD and gTLD is all that is needed. Giving local governments a reason to choose whether to keep a country code, geo or country name under its control as cctld or giving it up to the wild as gTLD should be the problem to find an answer to.
not for profit does not have to mean charity - in most cases these are self financed organisations that have no other means of income than domain registrations. not for profit means we do not charge more than we need to sustainably run the organisation.
.com is history, today we have list of three letter country codes that are blocked for everyone and our goal was to find a solution that would enable to put these in use. All as ccTLDs or gTLD will probably not pass, the first round's geo TLD model is flawed at least in some minds and you seem to confirm that. Unfortunately we did not reach the goal.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Timo,
As a non-for-profit GEO TLD Registry I see GEOs to be stuck between ccTLD and the rest of new gTLD world.
Most GEOs have names of capital cities, so we can not "make money" without responsibility before the Mayor's offices (and local governments) of the biggest cities of our countries.
P.s: after all most CCTLDs charge for domains and do not give it for free.
P.P.s: with 3 letters everything was messed up years ago (Comoro Islands) and some more were delegated in the last round ...
Sincerely Yours,
Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID
m. +7 916 6761580 skype oldfrogger
Current UTC offset: +3.00 (Moscow)
On Aug 27, 2016, at 00:39, Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar@internet.ee> wrote:
Thank you Carlos for your kind and calming words!
I still feel that taking this issue to GNSO is bad idea from the governmental and ccTLD perspective. I do understand Alexander's and Susan's standpoints and respect their opinions, but I disagree.
I do not feel that my and Estonia's dream of .est as ccTLD is impossible - yet. Having also spoken with some government advisers and seeing that some actually understand that for registrants and internet users there is no difference between ccTLD and gTLD, the only thing that matters to them is what the tld stands for in their mind. The difference between ccTLD, gTLD, new gTLD, geoTLD is the delegation process and who is in control in the end. This is important only to us - TLD operators, ICANN, governments in the case at hand and businesses trying to protect their brand or make money. I am sure there are GAC members that believe that ccTLD stands for two letter TLD. And I know there are those that feel differently. There is and will be no chaos - lets not talk nonsense.
I do feel a bit alone and outnumbered here - thank you Rosalia for speaking up. I believe that GNSO PDP group is biased. We should discuss what was lacking in this CWG and try to fix that with new CWG interation. So if GNSO PDP suggestion is pushed in the report, I ask that alternative solution with balanced cross-community working group is also suggested.
Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Head of development Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. < crg@isoc-cr.org> wrote: Dear Timo,
first of all many thanks for your suggestions. It would be good to take a step back and recognise that
1. The ccNSO already spent more than 2 years thinking about this, and it was their report that suggested create the present Working Group together with the GNSO to look for a general framework (instead of restrictive lists of reserved names that I´m afraid will be never complete. 2. The GAC has also spent quite some time on Geographic names, without any conclusive reports and/or recommendations. 3. This is so to say the 3rd effort open to all. So please join us in ur next call
Best regards
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Hi, GAC and gNSO assume that we come up with any kind of “suggestion” that they then can mull on. If we are not able to do so – we should communicate that clearly: “There is a ban of Territory and Country names as well of ISO 3166 III code elements in the 2012 AGB. We have been tasked to find a solution on how these could be applied for in future rounds – or whether that ban should stay in place. We feel that this discussion should not be facilitated by this WG but by the wider ICANN community. Hence we cannot make any suggestions but urge the stakeholders to create one in the current gNSO PDP”. Additionally: I think it is a bad idea to try to create one set of rules for different levels. We are discussing the Top Level here. If anyone wants to find a set of limiting rules for the 2nd level: That should be wholly independent from the top level. “.turkey” and “turkey.recipes” are worlds apart, so are “.bra” and “bra.store” – and any policy regarding their treatment should be clearly separated. Obviously just my personal opinion. Thanks, Alexander From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Freitag, 26. August 2016 14:33 To: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@uninett.no>; Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>; Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org>; ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC I would like to add my thanks to Joke for her excellent draft progress report. Thanks also to Heather and Annebeth for their comments and suggestions – here are a couple from me. Regarding the recommendations section I note that in Annebeth’s version, which I worked from as I thought it was the latest, some of the recommendations Heather proposed were not included. In full, those recommendations are: In light of the need for further work, the complexity of the issue at hand, the aforementioned inconsistencies between various ICANN policies, and the limited mandate of the CWG on the use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs, the CWG recommends that: 1) The ICANN community consolidate all policy efforts relating to geographic names (as that term has traditionally very broadly been defined in the ICANN environment to this point) to enable in-depth analyses and discussions on all aspects related to all geographic-related names at all levels of the DNS. This is the only way, in our view, to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable. 2) Future work should take place with the authority of a policy development process under ICANN’s Bylaws, with a clearly drafted Charter or scope of works that sets out how conclusions and recommendations will inform that policy development process. This addresses a key deficiency of this CWG, as it has not been made clear how the group’s work can or will be incorporated in policy-making pursuant to ICANN’s Bylaws. In this regard, we note that the use of geographic names in future new gTLDs falls within the scope of issues to be addressed by the now-formed and operative GNSO PDP on Subsequent Procedures. 3) Future policy development work must facilitate all-inclusive dialogue to ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity to participate. Again, we believe that this is the only way to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable. I am strongly in favour of including these recommendations. If we are to recommend that all policy work on geographic terms be consolidated to ensure harmonisation (which I agree that it should) then I think we must also address the question of where that consolidation should happen and make our recommendation. The PDP has a formalised status under the ICANN Bylaws and a clear process. The treatment of the outcomes of the PDP by the Board are also clearly set out, with a process of consultation to be followed where the Board determines that the recommendations “are not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN”. In addition, as Heather has pointed out, the issue of geo names in future “rounds” of New gTLDs also already within the Charter of the Subsequent Procedures PDP which has a large number of participants (133) and is not limited to the GNSO but includes members of the ALAC, GAC and unaffiliated individuals. I believe members of the ccNSO also already participate (even if not identified as such on the list of participants), since many ccTLD operators also have an interest in new gTLDs. The PDP work has been underway for some months considering overarching issues, and the working group is now breaking into work tracks to focus on specific groupings of related issues. Country and territory names fall within the Legal/Regulatory work track and would sensibly be dealt with by that work track when it considers other, related, issues around the reservation of names, including other geographic names which are not within the scope of this CWG, and names with other sensitivity (which are not geo names). thanks Susan Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 Valideus August Public Holiday Opening Hours The Valideus offices will be closed for a UK public holiday on Monday 29th August, reopening on Tuesday 30th August 2016. From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange Sent: 24 August 2016 08:24 To: Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear Joke, dear Heather, CWG colleagues, I join Heather in thanking Joke for her excellent work in producing this draft for a progress report. I have gone through it with special attention to your comments and input, Heather, and enclose a version with my questions and comments. I encourage my fellow colleagues to read the document and give input. We have to decide how to go forward with this, and it would be great to have opinions and suggestions from WG members. Kind regards, Annebeth From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Heather Forrest Date: Wednesday 24 August 2016 at 04:40 To: Joke Braeken, "ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> " Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear Joke, CWG colleagues, Tremendous thanks to Joke for her work on producing the first draft of our status report and recommendations, particularly while Steve Chan recovered on medical leave and Emily Barabas transitioned in temporarily as GNSO support staff. In my view this paper is a good start, and there is a bit more we can do. It is important that we keep this document relatively short, clear and to the point - otherwise we risk losing the community's attention. With this in mind, I propose that we add footnotes and names of earlier documents, groups, etc. to ensure the community has the complete picture of the work in this area (as indeed this is one of our key justifications for terminating our efforts - the multiplicity of policy initiatives on geo names) while streamlining this progress report by pushing the reader to those other documents for more detail/substance. I also suggest that we amend references to ISO 3166 from "list" to "standard", as that is a lesson we've very helpfully learned from Jaap. Finally, I believe we should be more clear and direct on our recommendations at the end, as ultimately we're in the best position to advise as to what should happen next and, crucially, what is needed for that to succeed (ie, we know best what our deficiencies were as a CWG, and have a view as to how to fix them). I look forward to our meeting next week and the opportunity to discuss this progress report in more detail. Best wishes, Heather _____ From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> > Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 21:39 To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear all, A short reminder that the next call for the CWG-UCTN WG is scheduled for next week Monday 29 August, at 21 UTC. You are kindly invited to provide us with your input, comments and feedback on the attached strawman paper by the end of this week. Thank you! Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto: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 From: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> > Date: Friday 19 August 2016 at 11:57 To: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> " <ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> > Subject: post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear All, Following the events at ICANN56 in Helsinki, staff drafted a strawman paper, as requested by the CWG-UCTN co-chairs. The attached paper lays out the Group’s discussion to-date, and provides the working group’s conclusions and recommendations in relation to the Group’s main objective. This document aims at generating a discussion among the group, regarding the next steps, taking into account that the main objective of the WG is to provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that is applicable across the respective SO's and AC's defining rules guiding the use of country and territory names as top-level domains that, ideally, can be applied objectively to alpha-2 and alpha-3 ISO 3166-1 codes as well as full country and territory names. Next meetings: 1. Monday 22 August, 21 UTC.CANCELLED. The co-chairs preferred to allow WG members sufficient time to review the post-Helsinki strawman paper, and to comment on it 2. Monday 29 August, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow. On the agenda: discussion of the post-Helsinki strawman paper 3. Monday 19 September, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto: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
Hello everyone, I had expected to join the call early tomorrow (my time) but scheduling will be very tight as I need to fly to Melbourne for our Australia and NZ Internet Awards. If time permits, I will dial in from the airport, but please accept my apologies if I don’t make it. Regards, Paul Paul Szyndler | General Manager, International and Government Affairs .au Domain Administration Limited T: +61 2 6292 5034 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 | M: +61 402 250 389 E: <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> paul.szyndler@auda.org.au | W: <http://www.auda.org.au/> www.auda.org.au Twitter: <http://twitter.com/auda> @auda | Blog: <http://www.auda.org.au/blog/> www.auda.org.au/blog/ auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joke Braeken Sent: Tuesday, 23 August 2016 9:39 PM To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear all, A short reminder that the next call for the CWG-UCTN WG is scheduled for next week Monday 29 August, at 21 UTC. You are kindly invited to provide us with your input, comments and feedback on the attached strawman paper by the end of this week. Thank you! 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 From: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> > Date: Friday 19 August 2016 at 11:57 To: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> " <ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> > Subject: post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC Dear All, Following the events at ICANN56 in Helsinki, staff drafted a strawman paper, as requested by the CWG-UCTN co-chairs. The attached paper lays out the Group’s discussion to-date, and provides the working group’s conclusions and recommendations in relation to the Group’s main objective. This document aims at generating a discussion among the group, regarding the next steps, taking into account that the main objective of the WG is to provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that is applicable across the respective SO's and AC's defining rules guiding the use of country and territory names as top-level domains that, ideally, can be applied objectively to alpha-2 and alpha-3 ISO 3166-1 codes as well as full country and territory names. Next meetings: 1. Monday 22 August, 21 UTC. CANCELLED. The co-chairs preferred to allow WG members sufficient time to review the post-Helsinki strawman paper, and to comment on it 2. Monday 29 August, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow. On the agenda: discussion of the post-Helsinki strawman paper 3. Monday 19 September, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow 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
I´m in Vienna right now, but as i arrived last night and we will be locked in the CCT-RT room for the whole day, i just hope to be awake at 11pm……so I apologise in advance Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 29 Aug 2016, at 10:26, Paul Szyndler wrote:
Hello everyone,
I had expected to join the call early tomorrow (my time) but scheduling will be very tight as I need to fly to Melbourne for our Australia and NZ Internet Awards.
If time permits, I will dial in from the airport, but please accept my apologies if I don’t make it.
Regards,
Paul
Paul Szyndler | General Manager, International and Government Affairs .au Domain Administration Limited T: +61 2 6292 5034 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 | M: +61 402 250 389 E: <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> paul.szyndler@auda.org.au | W: <http://www.auda.org.au/> www.auda.org.au Twitter: <http://twitter.com/auda> @auda | Blog: <http://www.auda.org.au/blog/> www.auda.org.au/blog/
auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator
Important Notice
This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joke Braeken Sent: Tuesday, 23 August 2016 9:39 PM To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear all,
A short reminder that the next call for the CWG-UCTN WG is scheduled for next week Monday 29 August, at 21 UTC.
You are kindly invited to provide us with your input, comments and feedback on the attached strawman paper by the end of this week.
Thank you!
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
From: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> > Date: Friday 19 August 2016 at 11:57 To: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> " <ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> > Subject: post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Dear All,
Following the events at ICANN56 in Helsinki, staff drafted a strawman paper, as requested by the CWG-UCTN co-chairs. The attached paper
lays out the Group’s discussion to-date, and provides the working group’s conclusions and recommendations in relation to the Group’s main objective.
This document aims at generating a discussion among the group, regarding the next steps, taking into account that the main objective of the WG is to provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that is applicable across the respective SO's and AC's defining rules guiding the use of country and territory names as top-level domains that, ideally, can be applied objectively to alpha-2 and alpha-3 ISO 3166-1 codes as well as full country and territory names.
Next meetings:
1. Monday 22 August, 21 UTC. CANCELLED.
The co-chairs preferred to allow WG members sufficient time to review the post-Helsinki strawman paper, and to comment on it
2. Monday 29 August, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow. On the agenda: discussion of the post-Helsinki strawman paper
3. Monday 19 September, 21 UTC. A calendar invite will follow
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 (10)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Annebeth Lange -
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. -
Heather Forrest -
Joke Braeken -
Maxim Alzoba -
Paul Szyndler -
Rosalia Morales -
Susan Payne -
Timo Võhmar