[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Sat Aug 11 19:31:44 UTC 2018

I don't agree at all. This can lead to government overreach in generic
names. I don't know why the government enthusiasts feel it's appropriate
that cctld operators that are private in nature to be granted such powers
either.

On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 3:14 PM Alfredo Calderon <calderon.alfredo at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I have been following the recent discussion of 3 letter TLD’s by Carlos
> Raul and the rest of the group members.
>
> Carlos Raul’s wording
>
> “ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes
> submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public
> interest/public benefit entities.”
>
> makes sense. We ICANN org would be delegating the responsibility to
> governments to ensure the validity of the requests. Therefore I support
> Carlos Raul’s suggestion.
>
> Alfredo Calderon
> Email: calderon.alfredo at gmail.com
> Twitter: acalderon52
> LinkedIn: pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52
> Skype: alfredo_1212
> Business Card: http://myonepage.com/acalderon
> Blog: aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2018, at 12:00 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <
> carlosraul at gutierrez.se> wrote:
>
> Dear Annebeth,
>
> As you have heard me (too) many times before, I admire the track record of
> preceding, clearly focused public interest 3 letter geo-TLDs, like the ones
> from Catalonia in Spain, Brittany's in France, and Serbia's 3 letter TLDs
>
> Now that I re-stated my rationale for such a clear-cut public interest
> case in an email to Rosalia (for geo use ONLY, accessible -i.e. cheap- and
> non-profit), I hereby submit to the WT my final revised language
> suggestion, which is ONLY applicable for 3-Letter codes. It would
> substitute the following final paragraph in the relevant section which
> deals with 3 Letter codes: “The SubPro may want to consider recommending
> whether any future application/revision/delegation process to be
> established (either generic or restricted to the Geographic categories
> only), should determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such
> as relevant public international, national or sub-national public
> authorities, may apply for country and territory names"
>
> My suggestion for a FORWARD looking option is:
>
> “ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes
> submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public
> interest/public benefit entities.”
> This paragraph is, in my view, a sensible part of a forward-looking
> recommendation that could go ahead with broader WT consensus. And if it
> does not, please make sure it is recorded as an objection against a
> permanent restriction of the delegation of ISO 3letter list.
>
> Thanks to all,
>
>
> ---
> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> 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
>
>
>
> 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <
> 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
> +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> on
> behalf of Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org>
> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45
> *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org" <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://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf
>  [gnso.icann.org]
> <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=>
> .
>
>
>
> If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an
> apology, please email 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
> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180811/3737474f/attachment-0001.html>