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

Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Fri Aug 17 05:35:21 UTC 2018


Dear All
Yes they are valuable for those countries too
There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes
Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution 
Regards
Kavouss .


Sent from my iPhone

> On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
> 
> That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason.  Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries.  And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list.  
> 
> It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well.
> 
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com 
> 
>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith at nominet.uk> wrote:
>> Hi Mike
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Best wishes
>> 
>> Nick
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
>> Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35
>> To: Edmon <edmon at dot.asia>
>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <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.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites:  "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
>> 
>>    does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."
>> Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix.  That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Mike Rodenbaugh
>> 
>> RODENBAUGH LAW
>> 
>> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
>> 
>> http://rodenbaugh.com 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon at dot.asia> wrote:
>> 
>> IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also.
>> Edmon
>> 
>> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com>
>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00
>> To: Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org" <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.
>> 
>> What purpose does that distinction serve anyone?  I think it is meaningless
>> and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable
>> two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle.
>> 
>> Mike Rodenbaugh
>> RODENBAUGH LAW
>> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
>> http://rodenbaugh.com
>> 
>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert <
>> alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:
>> 
>> > Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
>> >
>> > I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check
>> > ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt) cemented the one and only real differentiator
>> > in the DNS:
>> > That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority  (which may be
>> > deligated like in .tv)  of countries/nations. And that these are two
>> > character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
>> >
>> > If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working)
>> > BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character
>> > gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
>> >
>> > The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be
>> > uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Alexander
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Sent from my Samsung device
>> >
>> >
>> > -------- Original message --------
>> > From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange at norid.no>
>> > Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00)
>> > To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul at gutierrez.se>
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180817/1b69a550/attachment-0001.html>


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