Inquiry about the .io ccTLD situation.

[Pedro de Perdigão Lana]

An important addition to this discussion (one that surprised me when I was
reading about this issue): since .io is used as a gTLD, this has some
interesting effects. For example, Google's ad targeting treats .io as such.
<https://icannwiki.org/.io> This means we may have an (indirect) interest
in the issue, even if formally NCSG is not involved.

Cordially,

*Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
Lawyer <https://www.nic.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/>
Researcher
PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
Coordination/Board/EC @ ISOC BR <https://isoc.org.br/>, NCUC
<https://www.ncuc.org> & NCSG
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Home>(ICANN),
YouthLACIGF <https://youthlacigf.lat/>, IODA <https://ioda.org.br/> and CC
Brasil <https://br.creativecommons.net/>
This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received by
mistake, please reply informing it.


Em qua., 16 de out. de 2024 às 13:27, farzaneh badii <
farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> escreveu:

> Hi Emmanuel,
>
> While I don't have an opinion on this specific case, just wanted to
> mention that as NCSG we directly contribute to policies related to gTLDs
> (as long as they relate to ICANN mandate) but this doesn't mean that we do
> not and cannot provide advice on ccTLD matters that relate to ICANN.  We
> can provide advice on ccTLDs  when it comes to delegation and redelegation
> issues and generally issues related to ICANN and IANA.
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 11:52 AM Emmanuel Vitus <emmanuelvitus at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Bonjour  Jean,
>> Thank you for sharing the information. Just to clarify, since .io is a
>> ccTLD, it falls under the responsibility of the ccNSO, not the NCSG. The
>> NCSG primarily focuses on gTLDs and non-commercial interests within the
>> ICANN framework, while ccTLD-related matters like .io are managed by the
>> ccNSO.
>> Since this issue pertains to a ccTLD, it’s outside the usual scope of
>> NCSG members, who may not have the appropriate insights or responses. I
>> would recommend directing your concerns to the ccNSO. It might also be
>> worth bringing this topic up during the open sessions at ICANN81.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Emmanuel
>>
>> Le mer. 16 oct. 2024 à 10:03, Jean F. Quéralt <
>> 000016bf26350d73-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> a écrit :
>>
>>> Dear members,
>>>
>>> As you may have heard, following recent events, there are
>>> conversations/concerns/rumors about the .io ccTLD to (eventually) disappear.
>>>
>>> You can find some information on the events here:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.io
>>>
>>> While it is unlikely that this disappearance will materialize, we
>>> believe it's pertinent to address any possible concerns in advance and seek
>>> clarification from the appropriate structures if necessary.
>>>
>>> To this end, we would like to invite you to let us know:
>>>
>>> A) What are your concerns, if any, about this situation
>>>
>>> B) Are you concerned about a possible increase of price should the ccTLD
>>> change hands?
>>>
>>>
>>> Please let us know so we can support you if needed.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Jean F. Queralt
>>> Founder & CEO - The IO Foundation <https://TheIOFoundation.org>
>>> Book a meeting <https://TIOF.Click/BookJFQ> (30 minutes)
>>>
>>> *DISCLAIMER*
>>> *The content of this message, which may contain personal or sensitive
>>> data, is confidential. If you have received it by mistake, please inform
>>> the sender by replying to the email and then permanently delete the
>>> message, including any attachments. It is forbidden to copy, forward or in
>>> any way reveal the content of this message to anyone. The integrity and
>>> security of this email cannot be guaranteed over the Internet and,
>>> therefore, the sender will not be held liable for any damage caused by the
>>> message.*
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20241016/7a389d40/attachment.htm>