<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I certainly agree with Robin. We are also fighting to keep the
cost of domains low so that everybody can afford them.</p>
<p>Stephanie Perrin<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2021-02-17 5:27 p.m., Robin Gross
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:10382613-06C2-4102-951B-577E12869DAA@ipjustice.org">
<div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: sans-serif; color:
white; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; padding: .2em;">
<strong><span style="color: #c75000;">EXTERNAL EMAIL:</span></strong></div>
<div>I don’t support this approach. Noncommercial users have been
longstanding advocates of building a free and open Internet via
ICANN policies, so putting more rules and restrictions into
ICANN policies in order to satisfy powerful special interests,
including govt interests, is something that we generally oppose,
not support. I can’t imagine noncommercial users being in favor
of restricting domain name registrations as seems envisioned by
this IG process. CCTLDs and govts have real power to do things
in their jurisdictions, but that power shouldn’t be extended to
the entire Internet and infringe upon the sovereignty of other
legitimate interests. Sorry, but I think we need to go back to
the drawing board and start over on this issue with a
perspective that is more in favor of promoting an open Internet
with fewer restrictions, not more, on what people are allowed to
do with domain names. Thanks.
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Best,</div>
<div class="">Robin<br class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Feb 17, 2021, at 1:03 PM, Kris Seeburn
<<a href="mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">seeburn.k@GMAIL.COM</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div dir="auto" class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">Dear colleagues /
friends,</div>
<div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">This document was
sent to those part of the above WT. Our
first meeting is set friday 22nd. As you
will see there is a clear path or narrow
path. But my first take if to get a first
take from NCSG members. </div>
<div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">I had sent a first
email to Chris on a proposed potential way
forward but building a framework would
need not only from my take be in the
domain naming but far than that a
framework with immunity for governments or
GAC. </div>
<div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">First take:</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div dir="ltr" style="" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="" class="">I will be
raising some pertinent questions on
legitimacy of someone who registers a
domain not registered in their own
country as a business or WIPO On an
international business case firm.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="" class="">For
example in France if you are a company
registered in France only their is an
article under law to be under the ccNSO
so that it reflects a French company.
But their is need to have all documents
duly registered as a company in the
jurisdiction but of course the French
law does exclude the .org or .net <a href="http://or.com/" dir="ltr" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="link" x-apple-data-detectors-result="0" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">or.com</a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="" class="">I read
the document literally very well the
burden of proof is fine as this is
international law and I think for .com,
.org for example we should be signing in
an agreement with WIPO on ensuring our
own clarity in doing a clear cut work.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="" class="">Second
take:</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="" class="">
<div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">I think it has
become a time that things become not a
jungle as it is but clear stipulation
of what we think and should help the
community ar large.</div>
<div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">I’ll explain
them point wise and we will discuss
same when we do</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">- we need to
absolutely sign a working agreement
with WIPO</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">- on the
governmental grounds and for ICANN
business model there is need for more
work to go in. Creating the ccNSO was
a good thing as a derivative and this
could lead to a proper working of the
ccNSO and the main 3 domains,
org,net,com - I say this because we
need to resonate and ensure clarity in
the domain name business such as asia,
Africa etc., but I would like to raise
something important that I think
should be reviewed. The three original
domains were past but we are now in a
new world, I see too many businesses
being ripped apart an people make you
payloads of money to get your domain
back.</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">- now the point
I want to make is that we need to push
the whole model in a very different
way, it does not mean if you have a
.com or .org like what happened to Red
Cross and so many examples we can
cite. I think the need to make a
different move altogether, meaning
that we should push any company
formally registered in a country to
adopt and go the country code name
since Govt knows the validity of a
company, their should be no open box
to just buy a .com etc unless it is a
company registered internationally.
And also on WIPO list. I am not
cutting loose the fact that those
already owning a .com .org etc.,
should be suffering a consequential
issue but we need to present a solid
case for those to happen and to also
ensure GAC is happier and that makes a
good business model case and the
reason the ccNSO was created and many
countries are still fighting to make
this work, reason is simple the cost
of a country level code depends has a
cost variance from country to country
so the cheapest is a .com when we are
looking to have a site. </div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">- Now another
debate that has been going on very
deeply is the Amazon jungle and the
Jeff bests Amazon company. Now for me
there is a clear distinction for <a href="http://amazon.com/" dir="ltr" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="link" x-apple-data-detectors-result="0" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">Amazon.com</a> the
international company registered in
the WIPO books. Amazon as a river and
community that falls between a few
South American countries could clearly
adopt a .org or the creation of .South
America for example.</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">_ believe me it
would make things easier to search
for.....</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">- I know my
colleagues will most likely not
necessarily like what am proposing but
when things go south , a framework of
mind change and model is required to
change. For example a company which is
international can have a .com if they
prove that they are international ,
look at ebay for example there is .com
which is mostly the American business
and then eBay Also has the country
level code registered. Why can’t
Amazon have an umbrella that <a href="http://is.com/" dir="ltr" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="link" x-apple-data-detectors-result="1" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">is.com</a> but
business done or represented in
America should be .US for example.</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">- Now it is
practice for any company duels
registered to go to court but at this
stage we need to ensure that GAC walks
the line in goof faith so that there
is a clear spot for businesses or
personal ones. Some who do not get
.com ruminate but also adopt the .co
domain. </div>
<div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">I have loads to
sat, but the way forward is a bit
dodgy as the convincing and clearing
need to happen. A music band could
adopt the .music for example. The
litmus test was put to test but it
failed as people still say if you are
a company you buy a .com or .co and so
on. </div>
<div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">The idea is to
create a path and clearly mitigated
risk based issues that would end up in
spending more money that en#uring a
clear path to move forward and
ensuring we put in place a mechanism
that we need to rollback what we have
into a more clearer understanding of
issues, like amazon the company is a
.com the Amazon the community in South
America should be an .org plus a
.South America if needs be. We need to
separate things now more than ever.
.gov for example is restricted to the
US government. Or .edu etc needs good
and clear demarcation....</div>
<div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">I also as I said
it might and must be the most
important thing is that we have WIPO
on with us on the work track as we
need their take as well as well as
AFrican union, European Union , ASEAN
all these. Are key players in making
a clear path.</div>
<div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">So just some
stuff to digest on before the meetings
take place, I see the document also
ask for clear defined timeliness etc.,
it is of course a clear definition for
all of us to be able to discuss but a
unanimous consent is necessary to make
it work. </div>
<div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">Things to put on
the agenda, but talking of agenda, I
see a document from staff explaining
the role of this WT but I would like
to see clear agendas for meetings and
I hope to see one coming our way for
the first meeting. I am unfortunately
methodical in how I see things.</div>
<div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">For
clarification I’ve sent these to the
group as my personal views to the
group, now the question boils down to
what members think and what we think.
My position will be those that we
agree together as one team. However,
take note that the document forwarded
puts a lot of burden on the group to
ensure a near water tight framework.
We either stick to old fashioned
thinking or we think differently.
There are ways to have a framework we
can put together but it’s a take we
can assert ourselves. We can try and
correct matters at hand or we keep
fighting and another WT be created as
is the usual case. Chris Dispain as
you may know is the chair and he took
note of these and suggested we talk
over the issues which some think is
out of scope.</div>
<div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">My view is we
cannot come up with a framework which
supports not only GAC but we need to
understand the root causes which most
understand already. But it’s a
possibility to try and make things
right ... like I always say put in
garbage you will have garbage at the
end. I know their are thoughtful and
intelligent people here on this list.</div>
<div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">Have a good read
and give me your critics, not to worry
I don’t hold grudges but whilst the
document looks very narrowly focused
the language and wordings are open
doors. I may not be a practicing daily
lawyer but just a first glance I saw
many loopholes to exploit. Perhaps an
opportunity to have a better retake to
frame a framework which is not only
for GAC but an opportunity to open
corrective actions for other issues
which could fall under the framework.
I can already say as of now that some
reps from GAC have already warned that
they expect a working framework and a
non biased one. I know many may and
will disagree or agree as well. But I
can our views forward by anticipating
and take this as a major possibility
to ensure stability of many things in
one go.</div>
<div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">I leave you all
with more to chew on and please feel
free and frank and open. I will work
with the voice of the NCSG which we
know is NCUC and NPOC. nevertheless
we work under the same umbrella. So
anything you may want add or correct
me and want a different take but I
will take a majority voice as our
stand from both houses and NPOC has
two reps and NCUC has only me which by
all means is and has to be that of
NCSG.</div>
<div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">All the best and
in hope to see some discussions and
any views that will come through with
all of you.</div>
<div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">The important
links:</div>
<div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<blockquote type="cite" style="" class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px
0.8ex; border-left-color:
rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="auto" class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px
0px 0px 0.8ex;
border-left-width:
1px;
border-left-style:
solid;
border-left-color:
rgb(204, 204,
204);
padding-left:
1ex;">
<div dir="auto" class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="" lang="EN-US">The
IGO Work Track
wikispace ca
be found
here: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/GNSOIWT/IGO+Work+Track+Home" target="_blank" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">https://community.icann.org/display/GNSOIWT/IGO+Work+Track+Home</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="" lang="EN-US">The
current
membership is
listed here: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/GNSOIWT/4.+WT+Members+and+mailing+list" target="_blank" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">https://community.icann.org/display/GNSOIWT/4.+WT+Members+and+mailing+list</a></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Kris</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="" class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<span id="cid:C0D48CC5-2C05-4076-983C-FBFABBBA2F88@hsd1.ca.comcast.net"><IGO
Work Track Briefing Paper - DRAFT - 11 Feb
2021.pdf></span>
<div dir="auto" class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>