[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 13:05:28 UTC 2018


Thank you very much  Annebeth and Aslam. Sure, for me it has been very enlightening. I will do so.

My apologies

Regards

 

Alberto

 

De: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange at norid.no> 
Enviado el: sábado, 11 de agosto de 2018 08:13 a.m.
Para: Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam at gmail.com>
CC: Alberto Soto <alberto at soto.net.ar>; 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.

 

Hi all 

 

As I tried to explain in the meeting the 8th August, the GNSO consensus process is different from the process in the other SO/ACs. Those of us from CcNSO, GAC and ALAC are not familiar with the GNSO process. Since WT5 is part of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, we have to follow it. 

 

 I think it will be useful for those not attending the meeting on the 8th to listen to the recording/read the transcript. We there went through the consensus process. 

 

 It is important to understand that every individual is entitled to his or her opinion, but consensus is not about voting.

 

I hope this helps.





Kind regards 

Annebeth 

 

 

Annebeth B Lange

UNINETT Norid AS

 

 

 

 


11. aug. 2018 kl. 06:16 skrev Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam at gmail.com <mailto:gmohamedaslam at gmail.com> >:

All

I would request we defer to the book to decide if consensus has been reached - this link will be helpful to understand the process for consensus https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/consensus-levels-proposal-16sep14-en.pdf

 

My reading is Greg might be right when he argues that the debate remains open until the Co-chairs issue a ruling. Challenging their decision needs escalation to the Chartering Organisation ie GNSO.

 

Best


On Aug 11, 2018, at 12:04 AM, Alberto Soto <alberto at soto.net.ar <mailto:alberto at soto.net.ar> > wrote:

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 <mailto: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 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> >
CC: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto: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_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-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

_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180811/cf3f45d7/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list