FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED
The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.
The ALAC appreciates the difficulties experienced by the Cross-Community Working on the Use of Names of Countries and Territories as Top Level Domains (CWG-UCTN) in attempting to fulfil its objective to "develop a consistent and uniform definitional framework that could be applicable across the respective SOs and ACs". We make the following comments with regards to the recommendations posed in the CWG-UCTN report.
The ALAC supports Recommendations 1, 2 and 4.
With regard to Recommendation 3, the ALAC supports option 3(c). Any work going forward must be both inclusive and will require a process which accommodates both the ccNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) as well as the GNSO PDP governed by the ICANN Bylaws Appendix A coupled with the GNSO PDP Manual. Whether this will include a CWG or some other form of group(s) will need to be decided jointly by the ccNSO and the GNSO prior to work proceeding.
FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED
The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins.
The ALAC appreciates the difficulties experienced by the CWG Framework for the Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDS (CWG-UCTN) in attempting to fulfil its objective to "develop a consistent and uniform definitional framework that could be applicable across the respective SOs and ACs" and we make the following comments with regards to the recommendations posed in the CWG report.
The ALAC supports Recommendations 1, 2 and 4.
With regard to Recommendation 3, the ALAC supports option 3(c). Any work going forward must be both inclusive and will require a process which accomodates both the ccNSO PDP Process as well as the GNSO PDP governed by the ICANN BYlaws Appendix A coupled with the GNSO PDP Manual. Whether this will include a CWG or some other form of group or groups will need to be decided jointly by the ccNSO and the GNSO prior to work proceeding.
7 Comments
Maureen Hilyard
It is interesting that although the ALAC statement on the use of 3 letter codes for CTNs was voted on by Oct 22 2015, unfortunately after the completion of the CWGs option paper on Oct 15, its contents however are not mentioned in later CWG reports where other contributions to the discussion are listed, even the Feb 2017 paper. This is a shame because it was one of the most interesting and comprehensive At-Large discussions I have seen in my time on the ALAC and contributing to ALAC statements. Although it was difficult to fit the discussion that resulted from the contributions directly into the CWG's 7 question and format, although Dev contributed a model at the end of our long discussion. The statement still constituted a response from across a wide section of At-Large and should have been acknowledged as some consideration of the effort and time that was provided by At-Large.
Maureen Hilyard
The Conclusions and Recommendations of the Cross-Community Working Group - Framework for use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs (CWG - UCTN), INTERIM PAPER
Their Conclusion and Recommendations on the feasibility of a uniform definitional framework
Comments and observations
• Despite several efforts to engage the wider community, the CWG was mainly driven by participants from the ccNSO and GNSO. Lower or inconsistent levels of involvement by other segments of the ICANN community have made it difficult to pursue community-wide solutions, yet the cross-community session in Helsinki clearly evidenced a broader, community-wide interest in this topic.
• The treatment of country and territory names as top-level domains is a topic that has been discussed by the ccNSO, GAC, GNSO, ALAC and the ICANN Board for a number of years. Issues regarding the treatment of representations of country and territory names have arisen in a wide range of ICANN policy processes, including the IDN Fast Track, the GAC Working Group to Examine the Protection of Geographic Names in any Future Expansion of gTLDs, the IDN ccPDP. References to country and territory names and their use are also present in guidelines such as the GAC’s “Principles and Guidelines for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains” and “Principles regarding new gTLDs”, foundation documents such as RFC 1591 and administrative procedures such as those followed by IANA, in accordance with ISO 3166-1, in the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs. More details can be found in the final report of the ccNSO Study Group which pre-dated the formation of this CWG.
• In addition to these existing work streams, new discussions are underway in two GNSO PDPs launched earlier this year, the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP, and the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in all gTLDs PDP. In Helsinki, the CWG co-chairs liaised with the co-chairs of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP to discuss the PDP’s scope, which notably includes policy on reserved names and recognition of legal rights in names.
• Current ICANN policies, particularly with regard to the current new gTLD process, provide an inconsistent framework for treatment of three-letter country representations. Rigid application of the current range of ICANN policies and procedures could potentially lead to an inconsistent treatment of country and territory names. Further, assuming a harmonized framework for just the use of country and territory names would be developed, the community would most likely face issues between rules flowing from such a framework and rules and procedures around other geographic names.
Conclusion
Since the adoption of its Charter in March, 2014, the CWG has met regularly through telephone conferences and at ICANN public meetings. It has provided regular updates to the communities, including the ccNSO, GAC and GNSO Council, and held a High Interest Topic session at the Helsinki meeting (ICANN56). (NB, the ccNSO team visited with the ALAC in Hyderabad - Nov 2016 - and both parties engaged in a very informative and productive discussion on this topic- MH). Throughout its deliberations to date, the CWG has noted an increase in complexity and divergence of views and interests with respect to the use of names of country and territories as TLDs and hence, the development of a consistent and uniform definitional framework to guide the definition of rules on the use of country and territory names as top-level domains across the respective SOs and ACs has been made challenging. Further, the CWG notes that its work overlaps with other community efforts, and given its limited mandate, will not be able to develop a consistent and uniform definitional framework that could be applicable across the respective SOs and ACs. Given the importance of country and territory names to a wide range of stakeholders, and although all involved have put in their best efforts to find a solution, the majority of the members of the Cross-Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains concludes that continuing its work is not conducive to achieving the harmonized framework its Charter seeks.
Recommendations
In light of the complexity of the issue at hand, the aforementioned inconsistencies between various ICANN policies, and the limited mandate of the CWG on the use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs, the CWG is of the opinion that work on use of names of country and territory names as TLDs should continue. However, and despite its best efforts, the CWG could not agree unanimously on the way forward. In effect, the divergence of views on how the issues identified should be addressed increased over time. Initially the CWG broadly supported the following recommendations 1, 2, and 4, and different views were expressed on recommendation 3. Over time the support for the recommendations shifted. Just before finalisation of this paper, a vast majority of the members who responded to an internal survey (response rate 20 out of 50) supported recommendation 1, 2, 4 and some form of recommendation 3. A minority did not support any of the recommendations or abstained.
Recommendation 1
To close this CWG in accordance with and as foreseen in the charter.
Recommendation 2
The CWG recommends that the ICANN community consolidate all policy efforts relating to geographic names (as that term has traditionally been defined very broadly to this point) to enable in-depth analyses and discussions on all aspects related to all geographic-related names. This is the only way, in our view, to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable.
Recommendation 3
The CWG could not agree on any of the alternatives for recommendation 3. As noted based on a survey poll, the majority of the members/participants in the CWG who participated in the poll (20), expressed support for one form or another of recommendation 3. A small majority of respondents supported alternative C, and a large minority alternative B. Please note that this should be interpreted as a sense of the direction of travel preferred by members of the WG. One of the major concerns, expressed by some members of the CWG, is that whatever structure is preferred for future work, the issues pertaining to the use of names of countries and territories as TLDs are within the scope of both the ccNSO and GNSO policy development processes. For example, how full names of countries and territories, other than Latin scripts, are dealt with. These issues should therefore be addressed through a coordinated effort under both processes.
**Recommendation 3 Alternative A
Future work should take place with the authority of a policy development process under ICANN’s Bylaws, with a clearly drafted Charter or scope of work that sets out how conclusions and recommendations will inform that policy development process. This addresses a key deficiency of this CWG, as it has not been made clear how the group’s work can or will be incorporated in policy-making pursuant to ICANN’s Bylaws. and GNSO policy development processes, for example how full names of countries and territories other than Latin scripts are dealt with, should be addressed through a coordinated effort under both processes.
**Recommendation 3 Alternative B
To ensure that the conclusions and recommendations of a CWG will at one point have the authority of a policy developed through the relevant processes under ICANN’s Bylaws, future work should take place with a clear view on how this work at some point will reach the authority of a policy developed as or relates to and provides input to formal policy development processes. With regard to the subject matter, the use of country and territory names as TLDs, the CWG notes that this should be defined with respect to both the ccNSO and GNSO Policy development processes. Due to the overlapping definitions used under existing policies, additional policy developed by one group may impact and have an effect upon the policy developed by another group. Avoiding this issue may be achieved through a clearly drafted Charter or scope of work that sets out how these policy development processes will be informed. This addresses a key deficiency this CWG has encountered, as it has not been made clear how the group’s work can or will be incorporated in policy-making pursuant to ICANN’s Bylaws.
**Recommendation 3 Alternative C
Future work should clearly align with ICANN policy development processes, and should have a clearly drafted Charter or scope of work that sets out how conclusions and recommendations will inform ICANN policy development.
Recommendation 4
Future policy development work must facilitate an all-inclusive dialogue to ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity to participate. Again, we believe that this is the only way to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable.
Cross-Community Working Group - Framework for use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs (CWG - UCTN), INTERIM PAPER 1, 9 February 2017
OUR TASK to provide feedback to the CWG is to agree or disagree with their recommendations, with any comments if we have any to make on the recommendations. The full report which is available at:
https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ctn-interim-paper-09feb17-en.pdf
Maureen Hilyard
thanks Maureen
DigitalSENSE Africa Media [Multiple-award winning medium]
(DigitalSENSE Business News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet)
M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms
PC Summit 2017, December 7-8 @Federal Palace, Victoria Island, Lagos.
Maureen Hilyard
April 9
Carlos Raul Gutierrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se via atlarge-lists.icann.org
What do you think?
Cheer
Carlos
Maureen Hilyard
Re CCWG Framework for the use of Country and Territory Names as ccTLDs
Their recommendations show the level of diversity of views even among the WG but it appears that they did did agree that the issue is important enough to be discussed further and more inclusively by a wider group of stakeholders... but not by them. Their first recommendation is that the current CCWG be closed as per their Charter.
Maureen Hilyard
Proposed statement: (first draft)
The ALAC appreciates the difficulties experienced by the CWG Framework for the Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDS (CWG-UCTN) in attempting to fulfil its objective to "develop a consistent and uniform definitional framework that could be applicable across the respective SOs and ACs" and we make the following comments with regards to the recommendations posed in the CWG report.
We too agree with Recommendations 1, 2 and 4 noting that the objective of the harmonised framework is important enough to establish a new and inclusive CWG, working on a more clarified Charter, that will continue and complete the development of the framework. This new CWG will require a Charter that clearly outlines its responsibilities and authority with regards to its eventual contribution to the ICANN policy development process.
We also opted for Recommendation 3 (c) as it clearly and succinctly defines the intent and direction of the CWG. Any explanation as to why this is important is very clearly detailed in your report.
Alan Greenberg
Sorry to come into this so late.
I agree completely with the intent of the statement, but I find the wording problematic. You referral to a CWG as the vehicle for the next work makes an assumption that may well be incorrect. Rec 3c is careful not to use this term. Whatever vehicle we will use must end up satisfying both the ccNSO PDP process as well as the gNSO PDP Process and the Bylaws Annex A in order to have the force of a ccNSO and GNSO PDP. I suspect the vehicle will be to charter individual PDPs in both groups and have them both delegate the actual work to a new group (perhaps it will be a CWG but it is presumptuous to assume that now).
I can suggest wording if you wish.
Lastly, either I am not understanding or there is a typo in the last sentence. Perhaps it is "An explanation..."?