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

Sun Feb 14 15:28:43 EET 2021

Was this position agreed or discussed with NCUC/NCSG?!
Tanya

On Sun 14. Feb 2021 at 13:31, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20210214/eb792140/attachment.htm>