incendiary questions - cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum
Dear co-chairs and staff. I am not sure whether you would like suggestions of “incendiary questions” for the cross community forum session? I do have a couple, which could spark lively discussion: Context is irrelevant – use of a personal name or a brand name, even if intended to identify the person or entity (eg Tata), should never be permitted if it matches a geographic term; Trade marks serve no public interest benefit; Is it a problem if 18 months after comments were submitted by the community in response to the proposal from the GAC’s working group on geographic names, those comments have not been addressed? Does it matter that the CWG-UCTN, the Subsequent Procedures PDP and the GAC might all reach different conclusions on the treatment of geo names? For the avoidance of doubt these are not necessarily my own views or those of my employer or clients – but intended to meet the “contentious ideas” criterion. Looking forward to an interesting meeting in Helsinki. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: 10 June 2016 18:22 To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] Agenda 13 June 2016, 20.00 UTC + note cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum Dear all, Please find included the draft agenda for the upcoming CCWG CTN call 13 June 2016, 20.00 UTC. 1. Welcome and roll-call 2. Discussion on outline of Country and other Geographic Names Forum a. Purpose b. Format c. Topics d. Communication & Outreach e. Next Steps 3. AOB 4. Closure Also included is a draft outline for the session in Helsinki. Discussion of this topic is the main agenda item. Briefing country /territory / geographic names forum in Helsinki. Please note the following The forum is no longer running in parallel with the Right Protection Mechanism session. Following discussions, the latter has been moved to Monday afternoon. - The session will move to the GAC room - Chair of the GAC (and others) expressed a need to be informed about the session asap. Goal/Purpose of the session The topic / theme should be very high-level. Proposed title is: "The eternal debate: country, territory and geographic names in the DNS" Moderator/facilitators TBD Use two moderators: ccNSO person and GNSO person. For their role see format. Note if the WG wants to go for two moderators, they need to be briefed properly and in time. This will need to start before the Helsinki meeting. Chair of the session: TBD Role of the chair: introduce the session, ensure timing etc. Summarize session at the end (action-items, main outcomes/conclusions, which would then feed into the work of the CCWG CTN If the moderators will be from the ccNSO and GNSO, it is suggested that the chair will be from ALAC. Format The chair would set the scene with regard to all of the various initiatives (Use of Study group report). No speakers on each (like the GAC group or even our WG) as that makes it too "heavy". After the high level is provided, the moderators take over and ask particular audience members (to be identified) to answer questions, and then invite the audience to share there views (The best analogy is the "Q&A" current affairs show in Australia - http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/). It is also intended to use the ADOBE Room to send questions to the moderators Topics to be covered We intentionally use contentious ideas (like strawpeople) - "all of the groups of ICANN must harmonize their approach to geo names", "country names belong to countries", "three letter codes are just that, and no country has presumptive rights to them". The more incendiary, the better. Second theme could be: “the need for a harmonized framework is overrated”. This would bring in SSAC, and others who have a concern about that the differences in policies: use different definitions, overlaps etc. Associated to this, the moderators should be given plenty of examples that the former Study Group used and that DO relate to the WG - .com, .cym, .cs (to show dynamics of the ISO 3166-1 list) The moderators should use a lot of audience voting and "temperature of the room" for example through the ADOBE voting tool or show of cards. Note, even a 1/3 positive, 1/3 negative and 1/3 unsure is still a good outcome, highlighting how divisive the issue is. It should be ensured that the session is NOT only about progressing the specific agenda of the WG. It is OK if the debate is more general than the WG's charter (hence title of the session) We need to formulate a "final message". We don’t know where the conversation will go and we must not steer it. But there needs to be a clear "and now what?" at the end. This could be something like “Is there a need for a harmonized framework”. Communication & Outreach 1. Discuss and inform the WG at the Monday call (co-chairs) 2. Who of the WG members will be present in Helsinki and attending the session? 3. Inform and invite community (in particular GAC). Prepare summary of session paper, after call Monday 13 June 20.00 UTC) 4. Post session summary on schedule Next steps 1. Invite and inform session chair and moderators ( 14 June) ( co-chairs/staff) 2. Briefing session with moderators and chair (16 or 17 June) (co-chairs/staff) 3. Additional briefing in Helsinki (Monday morning, assuming moderators and chairs will be in Helsinki) 4. Identify “members in the audience” with particular view/interest (co-chairs/staff/ members of the WG 5. Invite “members of the audience” and explain format (staff on behalf of the co-chairs) 6. F-2-F meeting co-chairs with moderators and chair
Dear Susan, About your proposed "incendiary questions" , quoted: "Is it a problem if 18 months after comments were submitted by the community in response to the proposal from the GAC’s working group on geographic names, those comments have not been addressed?" This affirmation is not correct. All comments have been presented and adressed since the Icann Singapore meeting and after, meetings are open and since then no further proposal to the amalysis presented by our WG has been recieved. So please be so kind to refrain your proposed "incendiary question" considering these facts. Best regards Olga
El 24 jun 2016, a las 2:26 p.m., Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> escribió:
Dear co-chairs and staff.
I am not sure whether you would like suggestions of “incendiary questions” for the cross community forum session? I do have a couple, which could spark lively discussion:
Context is irrelevant – use of a personal name or a brand name, even if intended to identify the person or entity (eg Tata), should never be permitted if it matches a geographic term;
Trade marks serve no public interest benefit;
Is it a problem if 18 months after comments were submitted by the community in response to the proposal from the GAC’s working group on geographic names, those comments have not been addressed?
Does it matter that the CWG-UCTN, the Subsequent Procedures PDP and the GAC might all reach different conclusions on the treatment of geo names?
For the avoidance of doubt these are not necessarily my own views or those of my employer or clients – but intended to meet the “contentious ideas” criterion.
Looking forward to an interesting meeting in Helsinki.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: 10 June 2016 18:22 To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] Agenda 13 June 2016, 20.00 UTC + note cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum
Dear all, Please find included the draft agenda for the upcoming CCWG CTN call 13 June 2016, 20.00 UTC. 1. Welcome and roll-call 2. Discussion on outline of Country and other Geographic Names Forum a. Purpose b. Format c. Topics d. Communication & Outreach e. Next Steps 3. AOB 4. Closure
Also included is a draft outline for the session in Helsinki. Discussion of this topic is the main agenda item.
Briefing country /territory / geographic names forum in Helsinki.
Please note the following The forum is no longer running in parallel with the Right Protection Mechanism session. Following discussions, the latter has been moved to Monday afternoon. - The session will move to the GAC room - Chair of the GAC (and others) expressed a need to be informed about the session asap.
Goal/Purpose of the session The topic / theme should be very high-level. Proposed title is: "The eternal debate: country, territory and geographic names in the DNS"
Moderator/facilitators TBD Use two moderators: ccNSO person and GNSO person. For their role see format. Note if the WG wants to go for two moderators, they need to be briefed properly and in time. This will need to start before the Helsinki meeting.
Chair of the session: TBD Role of the chair: introduce the session, ensure timing etc. Summarize session at the end (action-items, main outcomes/conclusions, which would then feed into the work of the CCWG CTN
If the moderators will be from the ccNSO and GNSO, it is suggested that the chair will be from ALAC.
Format The chair would set the scene with regard to all of the various initiatives (Use of Study group report). No speakers on each (like the GAC group or even our WG) as that makes it too "heavy".
After the high level is provided, the moderators take over and ask particular audience members (to be identified) to answer questions, and then invite the audience to share there views (The best analogy is the "Q&A" current affairs show in Australia - http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/).
It is also intended to use the ADOBE Room to send questions to the moderators
Topics to be covered We intentionally use contentious ideas (like strawpeople) - "all of the groups of ICANN must harmonize their approach to geo names", "country names belong to countries", "three letter codes are just that, and no country has presumptive rights to them". The more incendiary, the better.
Second theme could be: “the need for a harmonized framework is overrated”. This would bring in SSAC, and others who have a concern about that the differences in policies: use different definitions, overlaps etc.
Associated to this, the moderators should be given plenty of examples that the former Study Group used and that DO relate to the WG - .com, .cym, .cs (to show dynamics of the ISO 3166-1 list)
The moderators should use a lot of audience voting and "temperature of the room" for example through the ADOBE voting tool or show of cards. Note, even a 1/3 positive, 1/3 negative and 1/3 unsure is still a good outcome, highlighting how divisive the issue is.
It should be ensured that the session is NOT only about progressing the specific agenda of the WG. It is OK if the debate is more general than the WG's charter (hence title of the session)
We need to formulate a "final message". We don’t know where the conversation will go and we must not steer it. But there needs to be a clear "and now what?" at the end. This could be something like “Is there a need for a harmonized framework”.
Communication & Outreach 1. Discuss and inform the WG at the Monday call (co-chairs) 2. Who of the WG members will be present in Helsinki and attending the session? 3. Inform and invite community (in particular GAC). Prepare summary of session paper, after call Monday 13 June 20.00 UTC) 4. Post session summary on schedule
Next steps 1. Invite and inform session chair and moderators ( 14 June) ( co-chairs/staff) 2. Briefing session with moderators and chair (16 or 17 June) (co-chairs/staff) 3. Additional briefing in Helsinki (Monday morning, assuming moderators and chairs will be in Helsinki) 4. Identify “members in the audience” with particular view/interest (co-chairs/staff/ members of the WG 5. Invite “members of the audience” and explain format (staff on behalf of the co-chairs) 6. F-2-F meeting co-chairs with moderators and chair
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Dear Olga, as I said it was intended to be incendiary, but if the WG has addressed the public comments and produced a new version of its proposal I am very happy to be corrected. Would you mind sharing it as I must have missed it. Many thanks Susan Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] Sent: 24 June 2016 21:10 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org>; Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@uninett.no>; Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>; Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>; Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org>; ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] incendiary questions - cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum Dear Susan, About your proposed "incendiary questions" , quoted: "Is it a problem if 18 months after comments were submitted by the community in response to the proposal from the GAC’s working group on geographic names, those comments have not been addressed?" This affirmation is not correct. All comments have been presented and adressed since the Icann Singapore meeting and after, meetings are open and since then no further proposal to the amalysis presented by our WG has been recieved. So please be so kind to refrain your proposed "incendiary question" considering these facts. Best regards Olga El 24 jun 2016, a las 2:26 p.m., Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> escribió: Dear co-chairs and staff. I am not sure whether you would like suggestions of “incendiary questions” for the cross community forum session? I do have a couple, which could spark lively discussion: Context is irrelevant – use of a personal name or a brand name, even if intended to identify the person or entity (eg Tata), should never be permitted if it matches a geographic term; Trade marks serve no public interest benefit; Is it a problem if 18 months after comments were submitted by the community in response to the proposal from the GAC’s working group on geographic names, those comments have not been addressed? Does it matter that the CWG-UCTN, the Subsequent Procedures PDP and the GAC might all reach different conclusions on the treatment of geo names? For the avoidance of doubt these are not necessarily my own views or those of my employer or clients – but intended to meet the “contentious ideas” criterion. Looking forward to an interesting meeting in Helsinki. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: 10 June 2016 18:22 To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] Agenda 13 June 2016, 20.00 UTC + note cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum Dear all, Please find included the draft agenda for the upcoming CCWG CTN call 13 June 2016, 20.00 UTC. 1. Welcome and roll-call 2. Discussion on outline of Country and other Geographic Names Forum a. Purpose b. Format c. Topics d. Communication & Outreach e. Next Steps 3. AOB 4. Closure Also included is a draft outline for the session in Helsinki. Discussion of this topic is the main agenda item. Briefing country /territory / geographic names forum in Helsinki. Please note the following The forum is no longer running in parallel with the Right Protection Mechanism session. Following discussions, the latter has been moved to Monday afternoon. - The session will move to the GAC room - Chair of the GAC (and others) expressed a need to be informed about the session asap. Goal/Purpose of the session The topic / theme should be very high-level. Proposed title is: "The eternal debate: country, territory and geographic names in the DNS" Moderator/facilitators TBD Use two moderators: ccNSO person and GNSO person. For their role see format. Note if the WG wants to go for two moderators, they need to be briefed properly and in time. This will need to start before the Helsinki meeting. Chair of the session: TBD Role of the chair: introduce the session, ensure timing etc. Summarize session at the end (action-items, main outcomes/conclusions, which would then feed into the work of the CCWG CTN If the moderators will be from the ccNSO and GNSO, it is suggested that the chair will be from ALAC. Format The chair would set the scene with regard to all of the various initiatives (Use of Study group report). No speakers on each (like the GAC group or even our WG) as that makes it too "heavy". After the high level is provided, the moderators take over and ask particular audience members (to be identified) to answer questions, and then invite the audience to share there views (The best analogy is the "Q&A" current affairs show in Australia - http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/). It is also intended to use the ADOBE Room to send questions to the moderators Topics to be covered We intentionally use contentious ideas (like strawpeople) - "all of the groups of ICANN must harmonize their approach to geo names", "country names belong to countries", "three letter codes are just that, and no country has presumptive rights to them". The more incendiary, the better. Second theme could be: “the need for a harmonized framework is overrated”. This would bring in SSAC, and others who have a concern about that the differences in policies: use different definitions, overlaps etc. Associated to this, the moderators should be given plenty of examples that the former Study Group used and that DO relate to the WG - .com, .cym, .cs (to show dynamics of the ISO 3166-1 list) The moderators should use a lot of audience voting and "temperature of the room" for example through the ADOBE voting tool or show of cards. Note, even a 1/3 positive, 1/3 negative and 1/3 unsure is still a good outcome, highlighting how divisive the issue is. It should be ensured that the session is NOT only about progressing the specific agenda of the WG. It is OK if the debate is more general than the WG's charter (hence title of the session) We need to formulate a "final message". We don’t know where the conversation will go and we must not steer it. But there needs to be a clear "and now what?" at the end. This could be something like “Is there a need for a harmonized framework”. Communication & Outreach 1. Discuss and inform the WG at the Monday call (co-chairs) 2. Who of the WG members will be present in Helsinki and attending the session? 3. Inform and invite community (in particular GAC). Prepare summary of session paper, after call Monday 13 June 20.00 UTC) 4. Post session summary on schedule Next steps 1. Invite and inform session chair and moderators ( 14 June) ( co-chairs/staff) 2. Briefing session with moderators and chair (16 or 17 June) (co-chairs/staff) 3. Additional briefing in Helsinki (Monday morning, assuming moderators and chairs will be in Helsinki) 4. Identify “members in the audience” with particular view/interest (co-chairs/staff/ members of the WG 5. Invite “members of the audience” and explain format (staff on behalf of the co-chairs) 6. F-2-F meeting co-chairs with moderators and chair _______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Hi Susan, sure Im in the airport now and will send it once arrived into Helsinki tomorrow. Best Olga 2016-06-24 15:07 GMT-03:00 Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>:
Dear Olga, as I said it was intended to be incendiary, but if the WG has addressed the public comments and produced a new version of its proposal I am very happy to be corrected. Would you mind sharing it as I must have missed it.
Many thanks
Susan
*Susan Payne*
*Head of Legal Policy* | *Valideus Ltd*
28-30 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com
D: +44 20 7421 8255
T: +44 20 7421 8299
M: +44 7971 661175
*From:* Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] *Sent:* 24 June 2016 21:10 *To:* Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> *Cc:* Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>; Lars Hoffmann < lars.hoffmann@icann.org>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org>; Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@uninett.no>; Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>; Heather Forrest < Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>; Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org>; ctn-crosscom@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] incendiary questions - cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum
Dear Susan,
About your proposed "incendiary questions" , quoted:
"Is it a problem if 18 months after comments were submitted by the community in response to the proposal from the GAC’s working group on geographic names, those comments have not been addressed?"
This affirmation is not correct. All comments have been presented and adressed since the Icann Singapore meeting and after, meetings are open and since then no further proposal to the amalysis presented by our WG has been recieved.
So please be so kind to refrain your proposed "incendiary question" considering these facts.
Best regards
Olga
El 24 jun 2016, a las 2:26 p.m., Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> escribió:
Dear co-chairs and staff.
I am not sure whether you would like suggestions of “incendiary questions” for the cross community forum session? I do have a couple, which could spark lively discussion:
Context is irrelevant – use of a personal name or a brand name, even if intended to identify the person or entity (eg Tata), should never be permitted if it matches a geographic term;
Trade marks serve no public interest benefit;
Is it a problem if 18 months after comments were submitted by the community in response to the proposal from the GAC’s working group on geographic names, those comments have not been addressed?
Does it matter that the CWG-UCTN, the Subsequent Procedures PDP and the GAC might all reach different conclusions on the treatment of geo names?
For the avoidance of doubt these are not necessarily my own views or those of my employer or clients – but intended to meet the “contentious ideas” criterion.
Looking forward to an interesting meeting in Helsinki.
*Susan Payne*
*Head of Legal Policy* | *Valideus Ltd*
28-30 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com
D: +44 20 7421 8255
T: +44 20 7421 8299
M: +44 7971 661175
*From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Bart Boswinkel *Sent:* 10 June 2016 18:22 *To:* ctn-crosscom@icann.org *Subject:* [Ctn-crosscom] Agenda 13 June 2016, 20.00 UTC + note cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum
Dear all,
Please find included the draft agenda for the upcoming CCWG CTN call 13 June 2016, 20.00 UTC.
1. Welcome and roll-call
2. Discussion on outline of Country and other Geographic Names Forum
a. Purpose
b. Format
c. Topics
d. Communication & Outreach
e. Next Steps
3. AOB
4. Closure
Also included is a draft outline for the session in Helsinki. Discussion of this topic is the main agenda item.
* Briefing country /territory / geographic names forum in Helsinki.*
Please note the following
The forum is no longer running in parallel with the Right Protection Mechanism session. Following discussions, the latter has been moved to Monday afternoon.
- The session will move to the GAC room
- Chair of the GAC (and others) expressed a need to be informed about the session asap.
*Goal/Purpose of the session*
The topic / theme should be very high-level. Proposed title is:
"The eternal debate: country, territory and geographic names in the DNS"
*Moderator/facilitators TBD*
Use two moderators:
ccNSO person and GNSO person. For their role see format.
Note if the WG wants to go for two moderators, they need to be briefed properly and in time. This will need to start before the Helsinki meeting.
*Chair of the session: TBD*
Role of the chair: introduce the session, ensure timing etc. Summarize session at the end (action-items, main outcomes/conclusions, which would then feed into the work of the CCWG CTN
If the moderators will be from the ccNSO and GNSO, it is suggested that the chair will be from ALAC.
*Format*
The chair would set the scene with regard to all of the various initiatives (Use of Study group report). No speakers on each (like the GAC group or even our WG) as that makes it too "heavy".
After the high level is provided, the moderators take over and ask particular audience members (to be identified) to answer questions, and then invite the audience to share there views (The best analogy is the "Q&A" current affairs show in Australia - http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/ ).
It is also intended to use the ADOBE Room to send questions to the moderators
*Topics to be covered*
We intentionally use contentious ideas (like strawpeople) - "all of the groups of ICANN must harmonize their approach to geo names", "country names belong to countries", "three letter codes are just that, and no country has presumptive rights to them". The more incendiary, the better.
Second theme could be: “the need for a harmonized framework is overrated”. This would bring in SSAC, and others who have a concern about that the differences in policies: use different definitions, overlaps etc.
Associated to this, the moderators should be given plenty of examples that the former Study Group used and that DO relate to the WG - .com, .cym, .cs (to show dynamics of the ISO 3166-1 list)
The moderators should use a lot of audience voting and "temperature of the room" for example through the ADOBE voting tool or show of cards. Note, even a 1/3 positive, 1/3 negative and 1/3 unsure is still a good outcome, highlighting how divisive the issue is.
It should be ensured that the session is NOT only about progressing the specific agenda of the WG. It is OK if the debate is more general than the WG's charter (hence title of the session)
We need to formulate a "final message". We don’t know where the
conversation will go and we must not steer it. But there needs to be a clear "and now what?" at the end. This could be something like “Is there a need for a harmonized framework”.
*Communication & Outreach*
1. Discuss and inform the WG at the Monday call (co-chairs)
2. Who of the WG members will be present in Helsinki and attending the session?
3. Inform and invite community (in particular GAC). Prepare summary of session paper, after call Monday 13 June 20.00 UTC)
4. Post session summary on schedule
*Next steps*
1. Invite and inform session chair and moderators ( 14 June) ( co-chairs/staff)
2. Briefing session with moderators and chair (16 or 17 June) (co-chairs/staff)
3. Additional briefing in Helsinki (Monday morning, assuming moderators and chairs will be in Helsinki)
4. Identify “members in the audience” with particular view/interest (co-chairs/staff/ members of the WG
5. Invite “members of the audience” and explain format (staff on behalf of the co-chairs)
6. F-2-F meeting co-chairs with moderators and chair
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Thank you! Me too. Safe flight. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street<x-apple-data-detectors://0/1> London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom<x-apple-data-detectors://0/1> E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255<tel:+44%2020%207421%208255> T: +44 20 7421 8299<tel:+44%2020%207421%208299> M: +44 7971 661175<tel:+44%207971%20661175> Sent from my iPhone On 24 Jun 2016, at 19:24, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Susan, sure Im in the airport now and will send it once arrived into Helsinki tomorrow. Best Olga 2016-06-24 15:07 GMT-03:00 Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>>: Dear Olga, as I said it was intended to be incendiary, but if the WG has addressed the public comments and produced a new version of its proposal I am very happy to be corrected. Would you mind sharing it as I must have missed it. Many thanks Susan Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>] Sent: 24 June 2016 21:10 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>>; Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@uninett.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@uninett.no>>; Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au<mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>>; Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au<mailto:Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>>; Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org>>; ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] incendiary questions - cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum Dear Susan, About your proposed "incendiary questions" , quoted: "Is it a problem if 18 months after comments were submitted by the community in response to the proposal from the GAC’s working group on geographic names, those comments have not been addressed?" This affirmation is not correct. All comments have been presented and adressed since the Icann Singapore meeting and after, meetings are open and since then no further proposal to the amalysis presented by our WG has been recieved. So please be so kind to refrain your proposed "incendiary question" considering these facts. Best regards Olga El 24 jun 2016, a las 2:26 p.m., Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> escribió: Dear co-chairs and staff. I am not sure whether you would like suggestions of “incendiary questions” for the cross community forum session? I do have a couple, which could spark lively discussion: Context is irrelevant – use of a personal name or a brand name, even if intended to identify the person or entity (eg Tata), should never be permitted if it matches a geographic term; Trade marks serve no public interest benefit; Is it a problem if 18 months after comments were submitted by the community in response to the proposal from the GAC’s working group on geographic names, those comments have not been addressed? Does it matter that the CWG-UCTN, the Subsequent Procedures PDP and the GAC might all reach different conclusions on the treatment of geo names? For the avoidance of doubt these are not necessarily my own views or those of my employer or clients – but intended to meet the “contentious ideas” criterion. Looking forward to an interesting meeting in Helsinki. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: 10 June 2016 18:22 To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] Agenda 13 June 2016, 20.00 UTC + note cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum Dear all, Please find included the draft agenda for the upcoming CCWG CTN call 13 June 2016, 20.00 UTC. 1. Welcome and roll-call 2. Discussion on outline of Country and other Geographic Names Forum a. Purpose b. Format c. Topics d. Communication & Outreach e. Next Steps 3. AOB 4. Closure Also included is a draft outline for the session in Helsinki. Discussion of this topic is the main agenda item. Briefing country /territory / geographic names forum in Helsinki. Please note the following The forum is no longer running in parallel with the Right Protection Mechanism session. Following discussions, the latter has been moved to Monday afternoon. - The session will move to the GAC room - Chair of the GAC (and others) expressed a need to be informed about the session asap. Goal/Purpose of the session The topic / theme should be very high-level. Proposed title is: "The eternal debate: country, territory and geographic names in the DNS" Moderator/facilitators TBD Use two moderators: ccNSO person and GNSO person. For their role see format. Note if the WG wants to go for two moderators, they need to be briefed properly and in time. This will need to start before the Helsinki meeting. Chair of the session: TBD Role of the chair: introduce the session, ensure timing etc. Summarize session at the end (action-items, main outcomes/conclusions, which would then feed into the work of the CCWG CTN If the moderators will be from the ccNSO and GNSO, it is suggested that the chair will be from ALAC. Format The chair would set the scene with regard to all of the various initiatives (Use of Study group report). No speakers on each (like the GAC group or even our WG) as that makes it too "heavy". After the high level is provided, the moderators take over and ask particular audience members (to be identified) to answer questions, and then invite the audience to share there views (The best analogy is the "Q&A" current affairs show in Australia - http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/). It is also intended to use the ADOBE Room to send questions to the moderators Topics to be covered We intentionally use contentious ideas (like strawpeople) - "all of the groups of ICANN must harmonize their approach to geo names", "country names belong to countries", "three letter codes are just that, and no country has presumptive rights to them". The more incendiary, the better. Second theme could be: “the need for a harmonized framework is overrated”. This would bring in SSAC, and others who have a concern about that the differences in policies: use different definitions, overlaps etc. Associated to this, the moderators should be given plenty of examples that the former Study Group used and that DO relate to the WG - .com, .cym, .cs (to show dynamics of the ISO 3166-1 list) The moderators should use a lot of audience voting and "temperature of the room" for example through the ADOBE voting tool or show of cards. Note, even a 1/3 positive, 1/3 negative and 1/3 unsure is still a good outcome, highlighting how divisive the issue is. It should be ensured that the session is NOT only about progressing the specific agenda of the WG. It is OK if the debate is more general than the WG's charter (hence title of the session) We need to formulate a "final message". We don’t know where the conversation will go and we must not steer it. But there needs to be a clear "and now what?" at the end. This could be something like “Is there a need for a harmonized framework”. Communication & Outreach 1. Discuss and inform the WG at the Monday call (co-chairs) 2. Who of the WG members will be present in Helsinki and attending the session? 3. Inform and invite community (in particular GAC). Prepare summary of session paper, after call Monday 13 June 20.00 UTC) 4. Post session summary on schedule Next steps 1. Invite and inform session chair and moderators ( 14 June) ( co-chairs/staff) 2. Briefing session with moderators and chair (16 or 17 June) (co-chairs/staff) 3. Additional briefing in Helsinki (Monday morning, assuming moderators and chairs will be in Helsinki) 4. Identify “members in the audience” with particular view/interest (co-chairs/staff/ members of the WG 5. Invite “members of the audience” and explain format (staff on behalf of the co-chairs) 6. F-2-F meeting co-chairs with moderators and chair _______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Hi Olga, I hope you had a good flight. Please could you circulate the new version of the GAC WG’s proposal on geo names. Or a link if it is published on the GAC website? Many thanks Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] Sent: 24 June 2016 21:25 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org>; Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@uninett.no>; Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>; Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>; Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org>; ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] incendiary questions - cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum Hi Susan, sure Im in the airport now and will send it once arrived into Helsinki tomorrow. Best Olga 2016-06-24 15:07 GMT-03:00 Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>>: Dear Olga, as I said it was intended to be incendiary, but if the WG has addressed the public comments and produced a new version of its proposal I am very happy to be corrected. Would you mind sharing it as I must have missed it. Many thanks Susan Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>] Sent: 24 June 2016 21:10 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>>; Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@uninett.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@uninett.no>>; Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au<mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>>; Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au<mailto:Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>>; Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org>>; ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] incendiary questions - cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum Dear Susan, About your proposed "incendiary questions" , quoted: "Is it a problem if 18 months after comments were submitted by the community in response to the proposal from the GAC’s working group on geographic names, those comments have not been addressed?" This affirmation is not correct. All comments have been presented and adressed since the Icann Singapore meeting and after, meetings are open and since then no further proposal to the amalysis presented by our WG has been recieved. So please be so kind to refrain your proposed "incendiary question" considering these facts. Best regards Olga El 24 jun 2016, a las 2:26 p.m., Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> escribió: Dear co-chairs and staff. I am not sure whether you would like suggestions of “incendiary questions” for the cross community forum session? I do have a couple, which could spark lively discussion: Context is irrelevant – use of a personal name or a brand name, even if intended to identify the person or entity (eg Tata), should never be permitted if it matches a geographic term; Trade marks serve no public interest benefit; Is it a problem if 18 months after comments were submitted by the community in response to the proposal from the GAC’s working group on geographic names, those comments have not been addressed? Does it matter that the CWG-UCTN, the Subsequent Procedures PDP and the GAC might all reach different conclusions on the treatment of geo names? For the avoidance of doubt these are not necessarily my own views or those of my employer or clients – but intended to meet the “contentious ideas” criterion. Looking forward to an interesting meeting in Helsinki. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: 10 June 2016 18:22 To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] Agenda 13 June 2016, 20.00 UTC + note cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum Dear all, Please find included the draft agenda for the upcoming CCWG CTN call 13 June 2016, 20.00 UTC. 1. Welcome and roll-call 2. Discussion on outline of Country and other Geographic Names Forum a. Purpose b. Format c. Topics d. Communication & Outreach e. Next Steps 3. AOB 4. Closure Also included is a draft outline for the session in Helsinki. Discussion of this topic is the main agenda item. Briefing country /territory / geographic names forum in Helsinki. Please note the following The forum is no longer running in parallel with the Right Protection Mechanism session. Following discussions, the latter has been moved to Monday afternoon. - The session will move to the GAC room - Chair of the GAC (and others) expressed a need to be informed about the session asap. Goal/Purpose of the session The topic / theme should be very high-level. Proposed title is: "The eternal debate: country, territory and geographic names in the DNS" Moderator/facilitators TBD Use two moderators: ccNSO person and GNSO person. For their role see format. Note if the WG wants to go for two moderators, they need to be briefed properly and in time. This will need to start before the Helsinki meeting. Chair of the session: TBD Role of the chair: introduce the session, ensure timing etc. Summarize session at the end (action-items, main outcomes/conclusions, which would then feed into the work of the CCWG CTN If the moderators will be from the ccNSO and GNSO, it is suggested that the chair will be from ALAC. Format The chair would set the scene with regard to all of the various initiatives (Use of Study group report). No speakers on each (like the GAC group or even our WG) as that makes it too "heavy". After the high level is provided, the moderators take over and ask particular audience members (to be identified) to answer questions, and then invite the audience to share there views (The best analogy is the "Q&A" current affairs show in Australia - http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/). It is also intended to use the ADOBE Room to send questions to the moderators Topics to be covered We intentionally use contentious ideas (like strawpeople) - "all of the groups of ICANN must harmonize their approach to geo names", "country names belong to countries", "three letter codes are just that, and no country has presumptive rights to them". The more incendiary, the better. Second theme could be: “the need for a harmonized framework is overrated”. This would bring in SSAC, and others who have a concern about that the differences in policies: use different definitions, overlaps etc. Associated to this, the moderators should be given plenty of examples that the former Study Group used and that DO relate to the WG - .com, .cym, .cs (to show dynamics of the ISO 3166-1 list) The moderators should use a lot of audience voting and "temperature of the room" for example through the ADOBE voting tool or show of cards. Note, even a 1/3 positive, 1/3 negative and 1/3 unsure is still a good outcome, highlighting how divisive the issue is. It should be ensured that the session is NOT only about progressing the specific agenda of the WG. It is OK if the debate is more general than the WG's charter (hence title of the session) We need to formulate a "final message". We don’t know where the conversation will go and we must not steer it. But there needs to be a clear "and now what?" at the end. This could be something like “Is there a need for a harmonized framework”. Communication & Outreach 1. Discuss and inform the WG at the Monday call (co-chairs) 2. Who of the WG members will be present in Helsinki and attending the session? 3. Inform and invite community (in particular GAC). Prepare summary of session paper, after call Monday 13 June 20.00 UTC) 4. Post session summary on schedule Next steps 1. Invite and inform session chair and moderators ( 14 June) ( co-chairs/staff) 2. Briefing session with moderators and chair (16 or 17 June) (co-chairs/staff) 3. Additional briefing in Helsinki (Monday morning, assuming moderators and chairs will be in Helsinki) 4. Identify “members in the audience” with particular view/interest (co-chairs/staff/ members of the WG 5. Invite “members of the audience” and explain format (staff on behalf of the co-chairs) 6. F-2-F meeting co-chairs with moderators and chair _______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Dear Susan, this is the link to the document. https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Working+Group+to+Examine+the+Pro... It does include a summary of all the comments recieved and the best practices WG developed after reviewing the comments from community. Now the WG is focused on a document about "public interest" definition. Best Olga 2016-06-26 16:51 GMT+03:00 Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>:
Hi Olga, I hope you had a good flight. Please could you circulate the new version of the GAC WG’s proposal on geo names. Or a link if it is published on the GAC website?
Many thanks
*Susan Payne*
*Head of Legal Policy* | *Valideus Ltd*
28-30 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com
D: +44 20 7421 8255
T: +44 20 7421 8299
M: +44 7971 661175
*From:* Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] *Sent:* 24 June 2016 21:25
*To:* Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> *Cc:* Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>; Lars Hoffmann < lars.hoffmann@icann.org>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org>; Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@uninett.no>; Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>; Heather Forrest < Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>; Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org>; ctn-crosscom@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] incendiary questions - cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum
Hi Susan,
sure Im in the airport now and will send it once arrived into Helsinki tomorrow.
Best
Olga
2016-06-24 15:07 GMT-03:00 Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>:
Dear Olga, as I said it was intended to be incendiary, but if the WG has addressed the public comments and produced a new version of its proposal I am very happy to be corrected. Would you mind sharing it as I must have missed it.
Many thanks
Susan
*Susan Payne*
*Head of Legal Policy* | *Valideus Ltd*
28-30 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com
D: +44 20 7421 8255
T: +44 20 7421 8299
M: +44 7971 661175
*From:* Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] *Sent:* 24 June 2016 21:10 *To:* Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> *Cc:* Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>; Lars Hoffmann < lars.hoffmann@icann.org>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org>; Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@uninett.no>; Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>; Heather Forrest < Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>; Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org>; ctn-crosscom@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] incendiary questions - cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum
Dear Susan,
About your proposed "incendiary questions" , quoted:
"Is it a problem if 18 months after comments were submitted by the community in response to the proposal from the GAC’s working group on geographic names, those comments have not been addressed?"
This affirmation is not correct. All comments have been presented and adressed since the Icann Singapore meeting and after, meetings are open and since then no further proposal to the amalysis presented by our WG has been recieved.
So please be so kind to refrain your proposed "incendiary question" considering these facts.
Best regards
Olga
El 24 jun 2016, a las 2:26 p.m., Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> escribió:
Dear co-chairs and staff.
I am not sure whether you would like suggestions of “incendiary questions” for the cross community forum session? I do have a couple, which could spark lively discussion:
Context is irrelevant – use of a personal name or a brand name, even if intended to identify the person or entity (eg Tata), should never be permitted if it matches a geographic term;
Trade marks serve no public interest benefit;
Is it a problem if 18 months after comments were submitted by the community in response to the proposal from the GAC’s working group on geographic names, those comments have not been addressed?
Does it matter that the CWG-UCTN, the Subsequent Procedures PDP and the GAC might all reach different conclusions on the treatment of geo names?
For the avoidance of doubt these are not necessarily my own views or those of my employer or clients – but intended to meet the “contentious ideas” criterion.
Looking forward to an interesting meeting in Helsinki.
*Susan Payne*
*Head of Legal Policy* | *Valideus Ltd*
28-30 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com
D: +44 20 7421 8255
T: +44 20 7421 8299
M: +44 7971 661175
*From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Bart Boswinkel *Sent:* 10 June 2016 18:22 *To:* ctn-crosscom@icann.org *Subject:* [Ctn-crosscom] Agenda 13 June 2016, 20.00 UTC + note cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum
Dear all,
Please find included the draft agenda for the upcoming CCWG CTN call 13 June 2016, 20.00 UTC.
1. Welcome and roll-call
2. Discussion on outline of Country and other Geographic Names Forum
a. Purpose
b. Format
c. Topics
d. Communication & Outreach
e. Next Steps
3. AOB
4. Closure
Also included is a draft outline for the session in Helsinki. Discussion of this topic is the main agenda item.
* Briefing country /territory / geographic names forum in Helsinki.*
Please note the following
The forum is no longer running in parallel with the Right Protection Mechanism session. Following discussions, the latter has been moved to Monday afternoon.
- The session will move to the GAC room
- Chair of the GAC (and others) expressed a need to be informed about the session asap.
*Goal/Purpose of the session*
The topic / theme should be very high-level. Proposed title is:
"The eternal debate: country, territory and geographic names in the DNS"
*Moderator/facilitators TBD*
Use two moderators:
ccNSO person and GNSO person. For their role see format.
Note if the WG wants to go for two moderators, they need to be briefed properly and in time. This will need to start before the Helsinki meeting.
*Chair of the session: TBD*
Role of the chair: introduce the session, ensure timing etc. Summarize session at the end (action-items, main outcomes/conclusions, which would then feed into the work of the CCWG CTN
If the moderators will be from the ccNSO and GNSO, it is suggested that the chair will be from ALAC.
*Format*
The chair would set the scene with regard to all of the various initiatives (Use of Study group report). No speakers on each (like the GAC group or even our WG) as that makes it too "heavy".
After the high level is provided, the moderators take over and ask particular audience members (to be identified) to answer questions, and then invite the audience to share there views (The best analogy is the "Q&A" current affairs show in Australia - http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/ ).
It is also intended to use the ADOBE Room to send questions to the moderators
*Topics to be covered*
We intentionally use contentious ideas (like strawpeople) - "all of the groups of ICANN must harmonize their approach to geo names", "country names belong to countries", "three letter codes are just that, and no country has presumptive rights to them". The more incendiary, the better.
Second theme could be: “the need for a harmonized framework is overrated”. This would bring in SSAC, and others who have a concern about that the differences in policies: use different definitions, overlaps etc.
Associated to this, the moderators should be given plenty of examples that the former Study Group used and that DO relate to the WG - .com, .cym, .cs (to show dynamics of the ISO 3166-1 list)
The moderators should use a lot of audience voting and "temperature of the room" for example through the ADOBE voting tool or show of cards. Note, even a 1/3 positive, 1/3 negative and 1/3 unsure is still a good outcome, highlighting how divisive the issue is.
It should be ensured that the session is NOT only about progressing the specific agenda of the WG. It is OK if the debate is more general than the WG's charter (hence title of the session)
We need to formulate a "final message". We don’t know where the
conversation will go and we must not steer it. But there needs to be a clear "and now what?" at the end. This could be something like “Is there a need for a harmonized framework”.
*Communication & Outreach*
1. Discuss and inform the WG at the Monday call (co-chairs)
2. Who of the WG members will be present in Helsinki and attending the session?
3. Inform and invite community (in particular GAC). Prepare summary of session paper, after call Monday 13 June 20.00 UTC)
4. Post session summary on schedule
*Next steps*
1. Invite and inform session chair and moderators ( 14 June) ( co-chairs/staff)
2. Briefing session with moderators and chair (16 or 17 June) (co-chairs/staff)
3. Additional briefing in Helsinki (Monday morning, assuming moderators and chairs will be in Helsinki)
4. Identify “members in the audience” with particular view/interest (co-chairs/staff/ members of the WG
5. Invite “members of the audience” and explain format (staff on behalf of the co-chairs)
6. F-2-F meeting co-chairs with moderators and chair
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Thank you Olga. My proposed question still stands therefore. I imagine it will be for the co-chairs and the moderator to decide whether it is included or not. I was aware of this document which dates from May2015. It consists of the Proposal produced in August 2014 and a summary of the comments received. It does not address the many serious concerns raised in those comments nor revise the WG proposal as a result of them. There is just a reference at the end to “The next steps are at the discretion of the Working Group and its Chair.” Regards Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] Sent: 26 June 2016 17:01 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org>; Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@uninett.no>; Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>; Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>; Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org>; ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] incendiary questions - cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum Dear Susan, this is the link to the document. https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Working+Group+to+Examine+the+Pro... It does include a summary of all the comments recieved and the best practices WG developed after reviewing the comments from community. Now the WG is focused on a document about "public interest" definition. Best Olga 2016-06-26 16:51 GMT+03:00 Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>>: Hi Olga, I hope you had a good flight. Please could you circulate the new version of the GAC WG’s proposal on geo names. Or a link if it is published on the GAC website? Many thanks Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom 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> From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>] Sent: 24 June 2016 21:25 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>>; Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@uninett.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@uninett.no>>; Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au<mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>>; Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au<mailto:Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>>; Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org>>; ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] incendiary questions - cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum Hi Susan, sure Im in the airport now and will send it once arrived into Helsinki tomorrow. Best Olga 2016-06-24 15:07 GMT-03:00 Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>>: Dear Olga, as I said it was intended to be incendiary, but if the WG has addressed the public comments and produced a new version of its proposal I am very happy to be corrected. Would you mind sharing it as I must have missed it. Many thanks Susan Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom 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> From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>] Sent: 24 June 2016 21:10 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>>; Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@uninett.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@uninett.no>>; Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au<mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>>; Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au<mailto:Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>>; Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org>>; ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] incendiary questions - cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum Dear Susan, About your proposed "incendiary questions" , quoted: "Is it a problem if 18 months after comments were submitted by the community in response to the proposal from the GAC’s working group on geographic names, those comments have not been addressed?" This affirmation is not correct. All comments have been presented and adressed since the Icann Singapore meeting and after, meetings are open and since then no further proposal to the amalysis presented by our WG has been recieved. So please be so kind to refrain your proposed "incendiary question" considering these facts. Best regards Olga El 24 jun 2016, a las 2:26 p.m., Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> escribió: Dear co-chairs and staff. I am not sure whether you would like suggestions of “incendiary questions” for the cross community forum session? I do have a couple, which could spark lively discussion: Context is irrelevant – use of a personal name or a brand name, even if intended to identify the person or entity (eg Tata), should never be permitted if it matches a geographic term; Trade marks serve no public interest benefit; Is it a problem if 18 months after comments were submitted by the community in response to the proposal from the GAC’s working group on geographic names, those comments have not been addressed? Does it matter that the CWG-UCTN, the Subsequent Procedures PDP and the GAC might all reach different conclusions on the treatment of geo names? For the avoidance of doubt these are not necessarily my own views or those of my employer or clients – but intended to meet the “contentious ideas” criterion. Looking forward to an interesting meeting in Helsinki. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom 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> From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: 10 June 2016 18:22 To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] Agenda 13 June 2016, 20.00 UTC + note cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum Dear all, Please find included the draft agenda for the upcoming CCWG CTN call 13 June 2016, 20.00 UTC. 1. Welcome and roll-call 2. Discussion on outline of Country and other Geographic Names Forum a. Purpose b. Format c. Topics d. Communication & Outreach e. Next Steps 3. AOB 4. Closure Also included is a draft outline for the session in Helsinki. Discussion of this topic is the main agenda item. Briefing country /territory / geographic names forum in Helsinki. Please note the following The forum is no longer running in parallel with the Right Protection Mechanism session. Following discussions, the latter has been moved to Monday afternoon. - The session will move to the GAC room - Chair of the GAC (and others) expressed a need to be informed about the session asap. Goal/Purpose of the session The topic / theme should be very high-level. Proposed title is: "The eternal debate: country, territory and geographic names in the DNS" Moderator/facilitators TBD Use two moderators: ccNSO person and GNSO person. For their role see format. Note if the WG wants to go for two moderators, they need to be briefed properly and in time. This will need to start before the Helsinki meeting. Chair of the session: TBD Role of the chair: introduce the session, ensure timing etc. Summarize session at the end (action-items, main outcomes/conclusions, which would then feed into the work of the CCWG CTN If the moderators will be from the ccNSO and GNSO, it is suggested that the chair will be from ALAC. Format The chair would set the scene with regard to all of the various initiatives (Use of Study group report). No speakers on each (like the GAC group or even our WG) as that makes it too "heavy". After the high level is provided, the moderators take over and ask particular audience members (to be identified) to answer questions, and then invite the audience to share there views (The best analogy is the "Q&A" current affairs show in Australia - http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/). It is also intended to use the ADOBE Room to send questions to the moderators Topics to be covered We intentionally use contentious ideas (like strawpeople) - "all of the groups of ICANN must harmonize their approach to geo names", "country names belong to countries", "three letter codes are just that, and no country has presumptive rights to them". The more incendiary, the better. Second theme could be: “the need for a harmonized framework is overrated”. This would bring in SSAC, and others who have a concern about that the differences in policies: use different definitions, overlaps etc. Associated to this, the moderators should be given plenty of examples that the former Study Group used and that DO relate to the WG - .com, .cym, .cs (to show dynamics of the ISO 3166-1 list) The moderators should use a lot of audience voting and "temperature of the room" for example through the ADOBE voting tool or show of cards. Note, even a 1/3 positive, 1/3 negative and 1/3 unsure is still a good outcome, highlighting how divisive the issue is. It should be ensured that the session is NOT only about progressing the specific agenda of the WG. It is OK if the debate is more general than the WG's charter (hence title of the session) We need to formulate a "final message". We don’t know where the conversation will go and we must not steer it. But there needs to be a clear "and now what?" at the end. This could be something like “Is there a need for a harmonized framework”. Communication & Outreach 1. Discuss and inform the WG at the Monday call (co-chairs) 2. Who of the WG members will be present in Helsinki and attending the session? 3. Inform and invite community (in particular GAC). Prepare summary of session paper, after call Monday 13 June 20.00 UTC) 4. Post session summary on schedule Next steps 1. Invite and inform session chair and moderators ( 14 June) ( co-chairs/staff) 2. Briefing session with moderators and chair (16 or 17 June) (co-chairs/staff) 3. Additional briefing in Helsinki (Monday morning, assuming moderators and chairs will be in Helsinki) 4. Identify “members in the audience” with particular view/interest (co-chairs/staff/ members of the WG 5. Invite “members of the audience” and explain format (staff on behalf of the co-chairs) 6. F-2-F meeting co-chairs with moderators and chair _______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Dear Susan, outcomes are the best practices and the requested analysis on "public interest" made by several participants in the Singapore meeting. Best Olga
El 26 jun 2016, a las 12:04 p.m., Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> escribió:
Thank you Olga. My proposed question still stands therefore. I imagine it will be for the co-chairs and the moderator to decide whether it is included or not.
I was aware of this document which dates from May2015. It consists of the Proposal produced in August 2014 and a summary of the comments received. It does not address the many serious concerns raised in those comments nor revise the WG proposal as a result of them. There is just a reference at the end to “The next steps are at the discretion of the Working Group and its Chair.”
Regards
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] Sent: 26 June 2016 17:01 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org>; Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@uninett.no>; Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>; Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>; Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org>; ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] incendiary questions - cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum
Dear Susan,
this is the link to the document.
https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Working+Group+to+Examine+the+Pro...
It does include a summary of all the comments recieved and the best practices WG developed after reviewing the comments from community.
Now the WG is focused on a document about "public interest" definition.
Best Olga
2016-06-26 16:51 GMT+03:00 Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>: Hi Olga, I hope you had a good flight. Please could you circulate the new version of the GAC WG’s proposal on geo names. Or a link if it is published on the GAC website? Many thanks
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] Sent: 24 June 2016 21:25
To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org>; Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@uninett.no>; Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>; Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>; Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org>; ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] incendiary questions - cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum
Hi Susan,
sure Im in the airport now and will send it once arrived into Helsinki tomorrow.
Best Olga
2016-06-24 15:07 GMT-03:00 Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>: Dear Olga, as I said it was intended to be incendiary, but if the WG has addressed the public comments and produced a new version of its proposal I am very happy to be corrected. Would you mind sharing it as I must have missed it.
Many thanks Susan
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] Sent: 24 June 2016 21:10 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org>; Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@uninett.no>; Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>; Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>; Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org>; ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] incendiary questions - cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum
Dear Susan,
About your proposed "incendiary questions" , quoted:
"Is it a problem if 18 months after comments were submitted by the community in response to the proposal from the GAC’s working group on geographic names, those comments have not been addressed?"
This affirmation is not correct. All comments have been presented and adressed since the Icann Singapore meeting and after, meetings are open and since then no further proposal to the amalysis presented by our WG has been recieved.
So please be so kind to refrain your proposed "incendiary question" considering these facts.
Best regards
Olga
El 24 jun 2016, a las 2:26 p.m., Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> escribió:
Dear co-chairs and staff.
I am not sure whether you would like suggestions of “incendiary questions” for the cross community forum session? I do have a couple, which could spark lively discussion:
Context is irrelevant – use of a personal name or a brand name, even if intended to identify the person or entity (eg Tata), should never be permitted if it matches a geographic term;
Trade marks serve no public interest benefit;
Is it a problem if 18 months after comments were submitted by the community in response to the proposal from the GAC’s working group on geographic names, those comments have not been addressed?
Does it matter that the CWG-UCTN, the Subsequent Procedures PDP and the GAC might all reach different conclusions on the treatment of geo names?
For the avoidance of doubt these are not necessarily my own views or those of my employer or clients – but intended to meet the “contentious ideas” criterion.
Looking forward to an interesting meeting in Helsinki.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: 10 June 2016 18:22 To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] Agenda 13 June 2016, 20.00 UTC + note cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum
Dear all, Please find included the draft agenda for the upcoming CCWG CTN call 13 June 2016, 20.00 UTC. 1. Welcome and roll-call
2. Discussion on outline of Country and other Geographic Names Forum
a. Purpose
b. Format
c. Topics
d. Communication & Outreach
e. Next Steps
3. AOB
4. Closure
Also included is a draft outline for the session in Helsinki. Discussion of this topic is the main agenda item.
Briefing country /territory / geographic names forum in Helsinki.
Please note the following The forum is no longer running in parallel with the Right Protection Mechanism session. Following discussions, the latter has been moved to Monday afternoon. - The session will move to the GAC room - Chair of the GAC (and others) expressed a need to be informed about the session asap.
Goal/Purpose of the session The topic / theme should be very high-level. Proposed title is: "The eternal debate: country, territory and geographic names in the DNS"
Moderator/facilitators TBD Use two moderators: ccNSO person and GNSO person. For their role see format. Note if the WG wants to go for two moderators, they need to be briefed properly and in time. This will need to start before the Helsinki meeting.
Chair of the session: TBD Role of the chair: introduce the session, ensure timing etc. Summarize session at the end (action-items, main outcomes/conclusions, which would then feed into the work of the CCWG CTN
If the moderators will be from the ccNSO and GNSO, it is suggested that the chair will be from ALAC.
Format The chair would set the scene with regard to all of the various initiatives (Use of Study group report). No speakers on each (like the GAC group or even our WG) as that makes it too "heavy".
After the high level is provided, the moderators take over and ask particular audience members (to be identified) to answer questions, and then invite the audience to share there views (The best analogy is the "Q&A" current affairs show in Australia - http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/).
It is also intended to use the ADOBE Room to send questions to the moderators
Topics to be covered We intentionally use contentious ideas (like strawpeople) - "all of the groups of ICANN must harmonize their approach to geo names", "country names belong to countries", "three letter codes are just that, and no country has presumptive rights to them". The more incendiary, the better.
Second theme could be: “the need for a harmonized framework is overrated”. This would bring in SSAC, and others who have a concern about that the differences in policies: use different definitions, overlaps etc.
Associated to this, the moderators should be given plenty of examples that the former Study Group used and that DO relate to the WG - .com, .cym, .cs (to show dynamics of the ISO 3166-1 list)
The moderators should use a lot of audience voting and "temperature of the room" for example through the ADOBE voting tool or show of cards. Note, even a 1/3 positive, 1/3 negative and 1/3 unsure is still a good outcome, highlighting how divisive the issue is.
It should be ensured that the session is NOT only about progressing the specific agenda of the WG. It is OK if the debate is more general than the WG's charter (hence title of the session)
We need to formulate a "final message". We don’t know where the conversation will go and we must not steer it. But there needs to be a clear "and now what?" at the end. This could be something like “Is there a need for a harmonized framework”.
Communication & Outreach 1. Discuss and inform the WG at the Monday call (co-chairs)
2. Who of the WG members will be present in Helsinki and attending the session?
3. Inform and invite community (in particular GAC). Prepare summary of session paper, after call Monday 13 June 20.00 UTC)
4. Post session summary on schedule
Next steps 1. Invite and inform session chair and moderators ( 14 June) ( co-chairs/staff)
2. Briefing session with moderators and chair (16 or 17 June) (co-chairs/staff)
3. Additional briefing in Helsinki (Monday morning, assuming moderators and chairs will be in Helsinki)
4. Identify “members in the audience” with particular view/interest (co-chairs/staff/ members of the WG
5. Invite “members of the audience” and explain format (staff on behalf of the co-chairs)
6. F-2-F meeting co-chairs with moderators and chair
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Hi, well, I have one question that obviously is very important to me as a positive solution to that question would enable a gTLD application with huge public benefit and positive social impact – but when the answer is negative (or no solution would be found) couldn’t be applied for; and I know there are already others out there that have similar ideas for the same class of currently ineligible strings: “.spain to represent the Spanish Government and tourism industry or .est to enable eGovernment in Estonia: If a nation’s Government DEMANDS the activation of its territory name or ISO 3166 Alpha 3 code (or both in union) as new gTLD: Should there be anyone stopping them from executing it? And what would be the rationale? To “protect” them from …… THEMSELVES?” I hope it is not too long – but explains the entire dilemma. The current GAC imposed rules create a boomerang: While small nations (e.g. city nations like HK or SG) probably are fine with “just one” TLD (their ccTLD) others are much bigger and might want SEVERAL of them. And only the U.S. has currently more than one: .mil, .edu, .gov! And these were chosen in 1984 (around October) about a decade before the Internet STARTED to evolve in the ever important tool it is today! Thanks, Alexander From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 8:27 PM To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org>; Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@uninett.no>; Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>; 'Heather Forrest' <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>; Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org> Cc: ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] incendiary questions - cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum Dear co-chairs and staff. I am not sure whether you would like suggestions of “incendiary questions” for the cross community forum session? I do have a couple, which could spark lively discussion: Context is irrelevant – use of a personal name or a brand name, even if intended to identify the person or entity (eg Tata), should never be permitted if it matches a geographic term; Trade marks serve no public interest benefit; Is it a problem if 18 months after comments were submitted by the community in response to the proposal from the GAC’s working group on geographic names, those comments have not been addressed? Does it matter that the CWG-UCTN, the Subsequent Procedures PDP and the GAC might all reach different conclusions on the treatment of geo names? For the avoidance of doubt these are not necessarily my own views or those of my employer or clients – but intended to meet the “contentious ideas” criterion. Looking forward to an interesting meeting in Helsinki. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: 10 June 2016 18:22 To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] Agenda 13 June 2016, 20.00 UTC + note cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum Dear all, Please find included the draft agenda for the upcoming CCWG CTN call 13 June 2016, 20.00 UTC. 1. Welcome and roll-call 2. Discussion on outline of Country and other Geographic Names Forum a. Purpose b. Format c. Topics d. Communication & Outreach e. Next Steps 3. AOB 4. Closure Also included is a draft outline for the session in Helsinki. Discussion of this topic is the main agenda item. Briefing country /territory / geographic names forum in Helsinki. Please note the following The forum is no longer running in parallel with the Right Protection Mechanism session. Following discussions, the latter has been moved to Monday afternoon. - The session will move to the GAC room - Chair of the GAC (and others) expressed a need to be informed about the session asap. Goal/Purpose of the session The topic / theme should be very high-level. Proposed title is: "The eternal debate: country, territory and geographic names in the DNS" Moderator/facilitators TBD Use two moderators: ccNSO person and GNSO person. For their role see format. Note if the WG wants to go for two moderators, they need to be briefed properly and in time. This will need to start before the Helsinki meeting. Chair of the session: TBD Role of the chair: introduce the session, ensure timing etc. Summarize session at the end (action-items, main outcomes/conclusions, which would then feed into the work of the CCWG CTN If the moderators will be from the ccNSO and GNSO, it is suggested that the chair will be from ALAC. Format The chair would set the scene with regard to all of the various initiatives (Use of Study group report). No speakers on each (like the GAC group or even our WG) as that makes it too "heavy". After the high level is provided, the moderators take over and ask particular audience members (to be identified) to answer questions, and then invite the audience to share there views (The best analogy is the "Q&A" current affairs show in Australia - <http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/> http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/). It is also intended to use the ADOBE Room to send questions to the moderators Topics to be covered We intentionally use contentious ideas (like strawpeople) - "all of the groups of ICANN must harmonize their approach to geo names", "country names belong to countries", "three letter codes are just that, and no country has presumptive rights to them". The more incendiary, the better. Second theme could be: “the need for a harmonized framework is overrated”. This would bring in SSAC, and others who have a concern about that the differences in policies: use different definitions, overlaps etc. Associated to this, the moderators should be given plenty of examples that the former Study Group used and that DO relate to the WG - .com, .cym, .cs (to show dynamics of the ISO 3166-1 list) The moderators should use a lot of audience voting and "temperature of the room" for example through the ADOBE voting tool or show of cards. Note, even a 1/3 positive, 1/3 negative and 1/3 unsure is still a good outcome, highlighting how divisive the issue is. It should be ensured that the session is NOT only about progressing the specific agenda of the WG. It is OK if the debate is more general than the WG's charter (hence title of the session) We need to formulate a "final message". We don’t know where the conversation will go and we must not steer it. But there needs to be a clear "and now what?" at the end. This could be something like “Is there a need for a harmonized framework”. Communication & Outreach 1. Discuss and inform the WG at the Monday call (co-chairs) 2. Who of the WG members will be present in Helsinki and attending the session? 3. Inform and invite community (in particular GAC). Prepare summary of session paper, after call Monday 13 June 20.00 UTC) 4. Post session summary on schedule Next steps 1. Invite and inform session chair and moderators ( 14 June) ( co-chairs/staff) 2. Briefing session with moderators and chair (16 or 17 June) (co-chairs/staff) 3. Additional briefing in Helsinki (Monday morning, assuming moderators and chairs will be in Helsinki) 4. Identify “members in the audience” with particular view/interest (co-chairs/staff/ members of the WG 5. Invite “members of the audience” and explain format (staff on behalf of the co-chairs) 6. F-2-F meeting co-chairs with moderators and chair
participants (3)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Olga Cavalli -
Susan Payne