[Ctn-crosscom] Draft Agenda CTN meeting Monday 21 September 20.00 UTC

Mon Sep 21 11:41:44 UTC 2015

Carlos,

About your comments sent to the LAC RALO email list, the regional At large
from Latin America and the Caribbean, in relation with the CCWG on Country
and Territory names and the role of the GAC.

The list is public, this is his comment about the GAC, which is in Spanish
and I translate as well:

*"................*
*Que el GAC ha hecho una contrapropuesta con un perímetro de definiciones
mas amplio, y se ha negado consistentemente a participar en este grupo.
Tampoco sabemos mucho del grupo del GAC sobre este tema, aunque es liderado
por Argentina*
*................"*

The text in red refers to the GAC and its translation into English
reads as follows:

*"that the GAC has made another proposal agains it, with a broader
definition and that the GAC has neglected consistenly its
participation in this group. We do not know also much about the GAC
about this issue, in spite of the fact that is leaded by Argentina."*

I want to clarify some points about your affirmation and request
clarification from your affirmations:

*The GAC has never neglected its participation in the CCWG*, I have
participated in several calls and F2F meeting, as much as I can, where
my participation had always the purpose of updating about the GAC WG
activities.

*CCWG has always been informed about GAC WG activities.*

*GAC WG outcome documents were made public, also they were open for
public comments which were presented during the last ICANN Singapore
meeting where you were one of the invited panelist to that open
session.*

*Argentina has the role of charing that working group, which has also
the participation of other 30 countries from all over the world.*

*Could you please clarify this sentence "**We do not know also much
about the GAC about this issue, in spite of the fact that is leaded by
Argentina"?*

*The GAC has not made another proposal agains this CCWG: *The scope of
both WG is different. GAC´s WG does not represent a proposal "against"
the CCWG on CTnames.

CCWG on Country and Territory Names refers  to names that are in
lists, as clearly stated in the CCWG Charter:

*"The objective of the CWG-UCTN is to review the current status of
representations of country and territory names, as they exist under
current ICANN policies, guidelines and procedures. In addition, the
Group has been asked to provide advice regarding the feasibility of
developing a consistent and uniform set of definitions that could be
applicable across the respective SO's and AC's for country and
territory names as top-level domains. Please note that the scope of
the WG is strictly limited to:*

*· Representations of names of Countries, Territories and their
subdivisions listed on or eligible to be listed on the Alpha-2 code
International Standard for country codes and codes for their
subdivisions (ISO 3166-1), (Names of Country and Territory). Other
geographicalindicators, such as regions, are excluded;*

*· The use of Country and Territory names as Top Level Domains. The
use of Country and Territory names as second or other level is
excluded."*

The GAC WG on GEO NAMES was created following the Durban GAC
Communique, see below link and relevant section:

file:///C:/Users/usuario/Downloads/Final_GAC_Communique_Durban_20130717.pdf

7.	Geographic	Names	and	Community	Applications	a. Geographic	Names i.
The	GAC	recommends	that	ICANN collaborate	with	the	GAC
in	refining,	for future	rounds,
the	Applicant	Guidebook	with	regard	to	the	protection	of	terms	with	national,
cultural,	geographic	and	religious	significance,	in	accordance
with	the	2007	GAC	Principles	on	New	gTLDs.

It is an internal GAC WG which started its work by the Buenos Aires
meeting in 2013 and focuses its work in those geographic and community
names that are not included in any ISO or United Nation list or other
officially recognized lists.

LAC RALO Public email list can be found in this link.

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-es/2015-September/029599.html

In this sense I kindly ask you to send an email to the LAC RALO list
explaining that your affirmations do not correspond with what has been
happening and clarifying your reference about Argentina.

Best regards
Olga

2015-09-21 8:21 GMT-03:00 Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <crg at isoc-cr.org>:

> Dear Olga,
>
> I cannot be on the call because i will be traveling today, so here is the
> background to the conversations with the ALAC and LACRALO leadership, who
> kindly have been looking for new volunteers for the CWG-UCTN because only
> Cheryl has been participant from their side.
>
> I gave some background on the working group, particularly that it
> developed from a previous working group by the ccNSO, that there existed
> another working group on geographic names in the GAC
> that the objectives of both the CWG and the GAC group where still based on
> different assumptions, as GAC had chosen a much wider scope
>
> I may have also mentioned the letter of the GNASO and ccNSO Chairs wrote
> to the Chair of the GAC after the Buenos Aires meeting where little if any
> progress was made in trying to work together.
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> _____________________
>
> email: crg at isoc-cr.org
> Skype: carlos.raulg
> +506 8837 7173 (cel)
> +506 4000 2000 (home)
> +506 2290 3678 (fax)
> _____________________
> Apartado 1571-1000
> San Jose, COSTA RICA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 19, 2015, at 9:26 AM, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Bart,
>
> many thanks for the agenda.
>
> There is an email sent by one of the co-chairs of this CCWG to the
> Regional At Large LACRALO email list with comments about the role of the
> GAC.
>
> I would like to request clarification about what is stated in that email
> and make comments about it.
>
> Best regards
>
> Olga
>
>
>
>
>
> 2015-09-19 10:07 GMT-03:00 Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel at icann.org>:
>
>> Dear all,
>> Please find included the draft agenda for our next call Monday 21
>> September 20.00 UTC.
>>
>>    1. Welcome
>>    2. Review of amended Strawman Paper
>>    3. Report on questionnaires
>>    4. Discussion of 3 letter codes status quo
>>    5. Progress Report for Dublin
>>    6. AOB
>>    7. Closure
>>
>> Also included the updated Strawman option paper.
>> Major changes:
>>
>>    - New text on role of the ISO 3166 MA ( as proposed by Jaap)
>>    - Area’s that need to be completed regarding the 2 letter codes.
>>    - Suggestion as discussed previously, to turn definition section into
>>    a glossary , that will evolve over time
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Bart
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ctn-crosscom mailing list
>> Ctn-crosscom at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ctn-crosscom mailing list
> Ctn-crosscom at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20150921/d1dcfd5e/attachment-0001.html>