[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [gnso-igo-wt] IGO WT - Preparation for our first call on 22 Feb at 1600 UTC

Sun Feb 14 14:31:10 EET 2021

Dear PC,
FYI

Cheers,
Tomslin

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com>
Date: Sat., 13 Feb. 2021, 12:44
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-wt] IGO WT - Preparation for our first call on 22
Feb at 1600 UTC
To: Chris Disspain <chris at disspain.uk>
Cc: <gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>, <gnso-secs at icann.org>

Hi Chris,

The document is fine and to me does not push for any clarifications. But in
hindsight I will say we need to do some real work for ICANN and our
community as well as the community at large.

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 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 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.

KRIS for NCUC

On 11 Feb 2021, at 18:25, Chris Disspain <chris at disspain.uk> wrote:

Greetings,

Thank you all for your patience. We now have our first call scheduled for
22 February and, as promised, I attach a briefing paper with thanks to Mary
Wong and Steve Chan for all the work to put it together. I hope you find it
useful and please send any questions or clarification requests to this list.

You will see from the briefing paper that the scope and boundaries of the
work of this group is very limited and I would like to specifically draw
your attention to the paragraph at the top of page 3 which states:

"As such, the Work Track may wish to consider an early discussion as to the
likelihood of it reaching *consensus on an appropriate policy solution
within the above framework that is also likely to be acceptable to the GNSO
Council and the GAC, such as to be a solution that can be adopted by the
Board as being in the best interests of ICANN or the ICANN community* (as
required under the Bylaws)."

It would help in our work if each of us could consider possible policy
solutions that we think fit within the scope and boundaries provided by the
GNSO and bring those ideas to our first meeting. We can then list of those
possible solutions, add others that may arise in the group discussions and
then test them for group consensus and consider the likelihood of wider
acceptance. At this early brainstorm stage, there are no bad ideas, only
useful contributions to get our work started.

I am very much looking forward to working with you all and will see you on
zoom on the 22nd.

Cheers,

Chris Disspain
chris at disspain.uk

+44 7880 642456

_______________________________________________
gnso-igo-wt mailing list
gnso-igo-wt at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-wt

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20210214/1b547f01/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-2.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 12586 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20210214/1b547f01/attachment.tiff>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGO Work Track Briefing Paper - DRAFT - 11 Feb 2021.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 163516 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20210214/1b547f01/attachment.pdf>