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

Sun Aug 19 21:02:59 UTC 2018

I don’t think there is an anti-government bias here.  There is a difference
of views regarding the granting of preferences to governments.  Calling
that “anti-government” is just an attempt to delegitimize or push back
against a broad set of views without making any substantive argument.

There are any number of non-governmental groups in the ICANN ecosystem —
but no “anti-government” ones.

Beat regards,

Greg

On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 11:10 AM Carlos Raul Gutierrez <
carlosraul at gutierrez.se> wrote:

> I fully concur with the Anti - government bias. Governments are an equal
> stakeholder and to the best of my knowledge there no Non-governmental
> Constituency Group (yet) in ICANN.
>
>
> On August 17, 2018 9:01:33 AM CST, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I do not understand the anti
>> government sentiments of some people
>> It is a little standing issue.
>> We need to work together in a fair basis
>> There are no unfounded and baseless reservation
>> Whatever could be categorised
>> as unfounded or baseless are to ignore
>>  the very right of the people of countries.
>> This has nothing to do with governments
>> There is no legitimacy on these claims
>> They are considered as invasion of country babes whether
>> Two letter or three letters
>> Regards
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 17 Aug 2018, at 04:46, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Alfredo, we have been excluding  many actors  under the baseless and
>> ideological "reserved names".  I am not in favor of exclusionary actors
>> here. I am in search of inclusiveness. Whoever can come up with the most
>> inclusive idea, I am up for it, when it comes to generic/geo names that
>> correspond to brands and generic names. Would that be the governments? I
>> doubt it. They are going to apply their local "exclusionary" laws on
>> generic names. Would that be the trademark owners, I doubt it. They want
>> to protect their brands. If a brand name resonates with a generic or geo
>> name, they should allow those names to register. same as the governments.
>> What has been happening until now, has been exclusionary and political. why
>> can't .Persiangulf exist and someone be able to register ihate.persiangulf?
>> why can't .persiangulf registry be in operation and some entity also come
>> up with the application of .arabiangulf? It's sad. but we are here at
>> ICANN and WT5 to exclude domain name registrants and registry ideas, and I
>> am the last person to be in favor of it.
>>
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 3:40 PM Alfredo Calderon <
>> calderon.alfredo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Farzaneh, I appreciate your comment. You seem to exclude two
>>> sectors that could manage requests. Whom do you propose should have the
>>> responsibility?
>>>
>>> [image: photo]
>>>
>>> *Alfredo Calderon*
>>> eLearning Consultant
>>>
>>> calderon.alfredo at gmail.com |http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com
>>>  | Skype: Alfredo_1212| wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon
>>>
>>> [image:
>>> https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/social_icons/square/facebook.png]
>>> <http://facebook.com/calderon.alfredo>
>>>
>>> [image:
>>> https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/social_icons/square/linkedin.png]
>>> <http://pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52>
>>>
>>> [image:
>>> https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/social_icons/square/twitter.png]
>>> <http://twitter.com/acalderon52>
>>>
>>> [image:
>>> https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/social_icons/square/googleplus.png]
>>> <http://plus.google.com/u/0/103289446075444313762/posts>
>>>
>>> [image:
>>> https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/social_icons/square/pinterest.png]
>>> <http://www.pinterest.com/acalderon/>
>>>
>>> [image:
>>> https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/social_icons/square/slideshare.png]
>>> <http://www.slideshare.net/acalderon>
>>>
>>> [image:
>>> https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/social_icons/square/klout.png]
>>> <http://klout.com/#/acalderon52>
>>>
>>> [image:
>>> https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/social_icons/square/wiseintro.png]
>>> <http://wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon>
>>>
>>> Get your own [image:
>>> https://s3.amazonaws.com/landing.wisestamp.com/7effb49f0d4783ce39b02e49dd2e30aa/envelope_colored.png]email
>>> signature
>>> <https://wisestamp.com/email-install?utm_source=promotion&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=get_your_own>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 11, 2018, at 3:31 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>> 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
> 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/20180819/85814c73/attachment-0001.html>