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

[Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH]

Dear All,

I second Annebeth as well.

If I remember correctly our discussion a few month ago, there was no opposition against this sentence

“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.”
as it provides a path for applicants to apply for currently not-available country and territory names given that ICANN initiates a process for release. Why should e.g. the German Government not be able to apply for .deutschland in the future?

The new proposal by Carlos refers not to not-available names, but to (new) “strings that are not current or future countries or territories“. As far as I remember we have not yet talked how to handle strings for newly founded country or territories - is this in the remit of WT5 at all?

So I support to keep the initial text.

Kind regards
Katrin


DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow
Akazienstrasse 28
10823 Berlin
Deutschland - Germany
Tel: +49 30 49802722
Fax: +49 30 49802727
Mobile: +49 173 2019240
ohlmer at dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer at dotzon.consulting>
www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting>

DOTZON GmbH
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598
Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin

Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> Im Auftrag von Alexander Schubert
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. August 2018 17:13
An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Additional Input Requested - "The ICANN community may want to consider. . ."

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<mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto: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: emily.barabas at icann.org<mailto: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/da9295f3/attachment-0001.html>