[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
javrua at gmail.com
Fri Aug 17 16:33:19 UTC 2018
This is a great and very granular conversation. I truly encourage it. I understand and appreciate the equities and complexities on both sides (actually maybe there’s more than two sides to the issue!) and I feel quite lucky to be surrounded by such a great group of professionals in this WT.
Bottom-up multistakeholder consensual processes are evidently not easy tasks. The amount of good faith and hard work it takes to move half an inch in any direction or to even not move in any direction at all is truly great. And I do sense and see that good faith in this WT.
We will definitely be moving along very soon, yet to keep the conversation going just for now (and for later food for thought) -and the conversation in itself is probably the most important value here-, allow me to pose a hypothetical (like I did in the past weeks with my “.apache” non-AGB geoname question):
-Right now, as you all know, the default standing status of 3-Letter country/territory codes is that they are “currently unavailable”. Compared to no movement at all in this topic, what do you opine if only Countries & Territories could be the delegatees for the 3-Letter country-territory code normally associated with said Country or Territory (e.g. as used in the Olympic Games) and said TLD carried with it agreed upon public interest obligations and conditions usually associated with ccTLDs (or perhaps stronger yet to be determined conditions and obligations)?-
> On Aug 17, 2018, at 12:23 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith at nominet.uk> wrote:
> Absolutely agree with you here Rosalia.
> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Rosalía Morales
> Sent: 17 August 2018 16:44
> To: 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 All,
> I think that governments do not inherently own anything; however, I strongly believe there are intangible values, associations, sovereignty and reputations attached to any name, especially a country name.
> Moreover, I strongly disagree with Liz’s argument that: ¨The distinction between countries, country codes, gTLDs, cultural communities and very real practical business models has disappeared completely.¨
> There are clear distinctions among TLDs depending on the use, the administration and mission of the organization. Even though ccTLDs are all managed differently, in most cases (.tv being a clear exception) are not-for-profit organizations that work to improve their local Internet ecosystems, give back to their country and represent their country’s name in the best possible way.
> It is a huge responsibility to represent a country’s name. We cannot take this lightly and act like all TLDs are the same. I understand the importance of freedom of speech and open markets, but I also understand the sensitive associated to a country’s name. I my opinion there is no denying it.
> I believe we should not include 3 letter country names in this coming round. There is no clear consensus how we should use a country’s name in this group.
> On Aug 17, 2018, at 9:26 AM, Liz Williams via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> wrote:
> The distinction between countries, country codes, gTLDs, cultural communities and very real practical business models has disappeared completely.
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5