[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Alberto Soto
alberto at soto.net.ar
Sat Aug 11 04:04:56 UTC 2018
I joined the WG a few days ago. I read a lot before doing it, but I find it
difficult to see all the documentation and previous meetings.
I imagine that it is already defined when consensus is reached, like other
WG.
And I would like to know if we already have points with achieved consensus.
I understand that there may be new ideas, but that form of rework, often
delays the team enough, and hinders compliance with any deadline.
Therefore, if we have points with consensus, and even more if it was total,
we should not treat them again.
Someone like me, incorporated at the last minute, could break the work done.
Regards
Alberto
De: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> En nombre de
Rosalía Morales
Enviado el: viernes, 10 de agosto de 2018 11:36 p.m.
Para: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
CC: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
Asunto: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on
Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Greg,
We had reached consensus as all notes and discussions indicate. We can
definitely discuss it again, I personally believe we will reach the same
result.
Best,
Rosalía
Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
_____
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 5:08:17 PM
To: Rosalía Morales
Cc: Carlos Raul Gutierrez; Javier Rua; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on
Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
The reason that we are doing a consensus call now is that we have not
formally reached consensus yet on any recommendation. All we had before was
the temperature of the room, at best. Now is the time to test whether we
have consensus — not to say that the there was a consensus already and it’s
too late to say anything but yes. That would not be a good test of consensus
nor would it be a freely-reached agreement on consensus.
Let’s keep in mind that the Co-Chairs are the only ones empowered to declare
whether or not we have consensus and what that level of consensus. Let’s
also keep in mind that any consensus level below full consensus implies some
level of disagreement. As such, we can have “consensus” even while one or a
few people disagree. The issue is whether we have strong agreement on
consensus (at some level). In order to accurately assess the level of
consensus, the Co-Chairs will need to see both the level of support and the
level of disagreement. For these reasons , it’s actually quite important to
let the “dissenters” speak out. And, yes, every once in a while, the dissent
becomes the consensus. More often the dissent influences the consensus and
strengthens it. So let’s let the consensus process work.
Best regards,
Greg
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 6:17 PM Rosalía Morales <rosalia.morales at nic.cr
<mailto:rosalia.morales at nic.cr> > wrote:
Carlos,
I’m not questioning your position. Everyone has their own right to their
opinions. My opinion is that we should try to move on.
Best,
Rosalía
Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
_____
From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul at gutierrez.se
<mailto:carlosraul at gutierrez.se> >
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 3:57:27 PM
To: Rosalía Morales; Javier Rua
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on
Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Rosalía
I submitted my position on 3 letter codes delegation in written form well
before San Juan.
My position goes back to the CWG on the same issue years ago, also on
record.
I can always live with a minority position here.
On August 10, 2018 10:27:56 AM CST, "Rosalía Morales"
<rosalia.morales at nic.cr <mailto:rosalia.morales at nic.cr> > wrote:
Dear All,
We discussed the issue on 3 letter codes for months and had come to a
consensus in our face to face meeting in San Juan. I strongly believe we
should stick to our previous agreements and move on.
Best,
Rosalía
On Aug 9, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com
<mailto:javrua at gmail.com> > wrote:
Carlos,
I see you support keeping the current status of two letter-letter
country/territory codes. I think that’s in line with general WT thinking
and I feel has broad support.
On the other hand, like some other WT members you mention preference for a
future policy that’s a bit more liberal or “pro delegation” in regards 3
letter codes that are geonames, limiting the possible applicants to
-governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and “public interest entities”.
Could you expand on these “public interest entities”? Could you suggest
language in the pertinent “Recommendation” for WT consideration?
Thx
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511
twitter: @javrua
skype: javier.rua1
https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul at gutierrez.se
<mailto:carlosraul at gutierrez.se> > wrote:
Dear Annebeth
I fully support Recommendation #1 AS IS
no changes there
I don't support the recommendation on ISO 3 letter (forgot the number). ISO
3 letter codes should be delegated to Govs, ccTLD managers or any other
interested PUBLIC INTEREST entities
Don't know if this answers your question
---
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
carlosraul at gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul at gutierrez.se>
+506 8837 7176
Aparatado 1571-1000
COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió:
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some
2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be
gTLDs. You don't think that will disturb the distinction we have had from
the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards,
Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange
Special Adviser International Policy
UNINETT Norid AS
Phone: +47 959 11 559
Mail: annebeth.lange at norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange at norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul at gutierrez.se
<mailto:carlosraul at gutierrez.se> >:
My comments to today's call:
1. "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" This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking
recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be
enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter
more concise version? A more "liberal" version? How about: "ICANN may
consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant
authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or
territories." Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 "reserving ALL two character
letter letter" combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it's truly ALL,
or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is
really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can't think of a
future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language
to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo
names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear
rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion
has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and
other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
---
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
carlosraul at gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul at gutierrez.se>
+506 8837 7176
Aparatado 1571-1000
COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared
yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and
typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will
be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
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 Martin Sutton
<martin at brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org> >
Date: Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45
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] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on
Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August
at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates
2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan
3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names
4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms
5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed
at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of
September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure
that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the
broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for
delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series
of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial
Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of
recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft
recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. Work
Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft
recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday. The leadership team will
officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call.
For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed,
please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_d
efault_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2
D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=m
BQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e
3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=>
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn
so-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org].
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an
apology, please email <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> gnso-secs at icann.org.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely
for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged
information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the
intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has
been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply
email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly
prohibited.
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180811/e72fb140/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list