IGO Work Track Briefing Paper - DRAFT - 11 Feb 2021.pdf

[Stephanie E Perrin]

I certainly agree with Robin.  We are also fighting to keep the cost of 
domains low so that everybody can afford them.

Stephanie Perrin

On 2021-02-17 5:27 p.m., Robin Gross wrote:
> *EXTERNAL EMAIL:*
> 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.
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
>
>> On Feb 17, 2021, at 1:03 PM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at GMAIL.COM 
>> <mailto:seeburn.k at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear colleagues / friends,
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> First take:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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 or.com <http://or.com/>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Second take:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> I’ll explain them point wise and we will discuss same when we do
>> - we need to absolutely sign a working agreement with WIPO
>> - 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.
>> - 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.
>> - 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 Amazon.com <http://amazon.com/> 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.
>> _ believe me it would make things easier to search for.....
>> - 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 is.com 
>> <http://is.com/> but business done or represented in America should 
>> be .US for example.
>> - 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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....
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> All the best and in hope to see some discussions and any views that 
>> will come through with all of you.
>>
>> The important links:
>>
>>>>>         The IGO Work Track wikispace ca be found here:
>>>>>         https://community.icann.org/display/GNSOIWT/IGO+Work+Track+Home
>>>>>         <https://community.icann.org/display/GNSOIWT/IGO+Work+Track+Home>
>>>>>
>>>>>         The current membership is listed here:
>>>>>         https://community.icann.org/display/GNSOIWT/4.+WT+Members+and+mailing+list
>>>>>         <https://community.icann.org/display/GNSOIWT/4.+WT+Members+and+mailing+list>
>>>>>
>> Kris
>>
>>
>> <IGO Work Track Briefing Paper - DRAFT - 11 Feb 2021.pdf>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20210217/947aecc0/attachment.htm>