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

Mon Aug 13 18:45:25 UTC 2018

Dear Alexander,
Why we do not have mandate
Why we do not have competence
Why we always postpone any useful decision
Why we can not declare that  ISO 3166 Alpha-3 code element based gTLDs can
NEVER be assigned
Reghards
Kavouss

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:12 AM Alexander Schubert
<alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:

> Carlos,
>
> I start to better understand your motivation: And I agree with you that
> this WT5 can NOT state, that ISO 3166 Alpha-3 code element based gTLDs can
> NEVER be assigned. Instead this WT5 simply agreed that it’s competence
> doesn’t mandate any decision – hence for the time being the AGB 2012 status
> will be upheld – until some other policy making body finds a solution in
> the future.
>
> But please let’s not already now create restrictions – if WT5 doesn’t have
> the competence to create a policy in regard to ISO 3166 Alpha-3 code
> element based gTLDs – then it surely doesn’t have the competence to create
> restrictions.
>
> Insofar my suggestion for the draft:
>
>
> *Recommendation #2 (last sentence):“The ICANN community may want to
> consider whether a future process should be established to determine if,
> when, and how alpha-3 codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard can be
> applied for.”*
>
>
>
> *Recommendation #3 (last sentence):*
>
>
>
> *“The ICANN community may want to consider whether a future process should
> be established to determine if, when, and how country & territory names
> listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard can be applied for.”Recommendation #4
> (last sentence):*
>
> *“The ICANN community may want to consider whether a future process should
> be established to determine if, when, and how country & territory
> short-form names listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard can be applied for.”*
>
>
>
> *The same for #5 to #8*
>
>
>
> What I honestly miss is an explanation why WT5 did not came up with a
> policy itself! It is my understanding that we declared the competence
> vested in the WT5 body as not authoritative enough to create policy. Right?
> In the future yet ANOTHER body (like the CWG or this WT5) will sit there
> and think: “Why have these people not simply created a policy”? We ought to
> explain ourselves! Because the explanation will provide clear guidance as
> to how a future policy making body has to be established. Remember: When we
> started WT5 we thought we find a solution. Then we suddenly declared
> ourselves “incompetent” – or not being authorized.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Carlos Raul Gutierrez
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 11, 2018 7:00 PM
> *To:* Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange at norid.no>
> *Cc:* 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.
>
>
>
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180813/499f02a1/attachment-0001.html>