<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">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="">seeburn.k@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" 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="">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="">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="">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 lang="EN-US" class="">The IGO Work Track wikispace ca be found here: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/GNSOIWT/IGO+Work+Track+Home" target="_blank" class="">https://community.icann.org/display/GNSOIWT/IGO+Work+Track+Home</a><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" class="">The current membership is listed here: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/GNSOIWT/4.+WT+Members+and+mailing+list" target="_blank" class="">https://community.icann.org/display/GNSOIWT/4.+WT+Members+and+mailing+list</a><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></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 dir="ltr" class=""></div></div><div dir="ltr" class=""></div></div><div dir="ltr" class=""></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><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class=""><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class=""><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class=""><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></body></html>