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

Sun Feb 14 21:37:02 EET 2021

Hi Tanya,

It wasn't agreed, which is why I am bringing it to the attention of the PC
so that we decide what to do with it.

Cheers,
Tomslin

On Mon., 15 Feb. 2021, 00:28 Tatiana Tropina, <tatiana.tropina at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20210215/4ca29f00/attachment.htm>