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

Sun Feb 14 21:53:06 EET 2021

Thanks Tomslin. I asked just in case, it would have been surprising if this
was agreed upon.
As someone who was against adding people with no experience related to IGO
to this work track just for sake of encouraging volunteers, I want to say
straight at the beginning that I’d like the PC to reflect on this for the
future in addition to doing something with this particular email.

Cheers
Tanya

On Sun 14. Feb 2021 at 20:37, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20210214/d9799999/attachment.htm>