[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Additional Input Requested - "The ICANN community may want to consider. . ."

[Alexander Schubert]

I second Annebeth,

 

There must be a misunderstanding regarding Carlos’ short version:

   “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.”

 

This was the original:

   “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names”

 

The “short version”  doesn’t make sense that way. Carlos: could you explain? You seem to reference to Alpha-2 codes that will not become country codes? If an authority is relevant, then the 2 letter code is assigned to them already, no? Or is it the not that has to disappear? Then it would make somehow sense.

Thanks,

 

Alexander

 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange
Sent: Donnerstag, 9. August 2018 17:39
To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Additional Input Requested - "The ICANN community may want to consider. . ."

 

Dear all

 

I don’t really understand the sentence Carlos proposed. What kind of names does this refer to?

 

Kindly

Annebeth

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org> >
Date: Thursday, 9 August 2018 at 16:07
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> >
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Additional Input Requested - "The ICANN community may want to consider. . ."

 

Dear Work Track members,

 

On yesterday’s call, there were a number of comments about the following suggested text in draft recommendations 2-8: 

 

“The ICANN community may want to consider whether a future process should be established to determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names.”

 

The purpose of this text was to acknowledge that some WT members expressed that there should be a way for country and territory names to be delegated, while also keeping in mind that others felt that this issue is not within the remit of Work Track 5 or the GNSO. 

 

Some support was expressed for deleting this sentence. 

 

One alternative to this sentence was proposed, by Carlos:

 

“ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.”

 

The Work Track leadership team would like to hear from the group if there are objections to deleting the text or if there are other edits that the group would like to suggest. Please reply on this thread.

 

Kind regards,

Emily

 

 

 

Emily Barabas | Policy Manager

ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

Email:  <mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org> emily.barabas at icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180809/0d9278e6/attachment.html>