<div dir="ltr">Thank you Carlos for your kind and calming words!<div><br></div><div>I still feel that taking this issue to GNSO is bad idea from the governmental and ccTLD perspective. I do understand Alexander's and Susan's standpoints and respect their opinions, but I disagree. </div><div><br></div><div>I do not feel that my and Estonia's dream of .est as ccTLD is impossible - yet. Having also spoken with some government advisers and seeing that some actually understand that for registrants and internet users there is no difference between ccTLD and gTLD, the only thing that matters to them is what the tld stands for in their mind. The difference between ccTLD, gTLD, new gTLD, geoTLD is the delegation process and who is in control in the end. This is important only to us - TLD operators, ICANN, governments in the case at hand and businesses trying to protect their brand or make money. I am sure there are GAC members that believe that ccTLD stands for two letter TLD. And I know there are those that feel differently. There is and will be no chaos - lets not talk nonsense. </div><div><br></div><div>I do feel a bit alone and outnumbered here - thank you Rosalia for speaking up. I believe that GNSO PDP group is biased. We should discuss what was lacking in this CWG and try to fix that with new CWG interation. So if GNSO PDP suggestion is pushed in the report, I ask that alternative solution with balanced cross-community working group is also suggested.<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Best Regards,<br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>Timo Võhmar</div><div>Head of development</div><div>Estonian Internet Foundation<br></div><div><a href="http://www.internet.ee" target="_blank">www.internet.ee</a><br></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org" target="_blank">crg@isoc-cr.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear Timo,<br>
<br>
first of all many thanks for your suggestions. It would be good to take a step back and recognise that<br>
<br>
1. The ccNSO already spent more than 2 years thinking about this, and it was their report that suggested create the present Working Group together with the GNSO to look for a general framework (instead of restrictive lists of reserved names that I´m afraid will be never complete.<br>
2. The GAC has also spent quite some time on Geographic names, without any conclusive reports and/or recommendations.<br>
3. This is so to say the 3rd effort open to all. So please join us in ur next call<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
<br>
<br>
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez<br>
<a href="tel:%2B506%208837%207176" value="+50688377176" target="_blank">+506 8837 7176</a><br>
Skype: carlos.raulg<br>
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)<div><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div>