[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes

[Peter Van Roste]

Not responding to anyone in particular, but a suggestion to all:
We are still trying to agree on what ‘geographic terms’ are.

As mentioned in the chat yesterday, I believe this is part of the scoping of the exercise and will help us later on to determine on which names we want to suggest policy. Discussing strings that are unlikely to be ever considered geographic names is a bit pointless.

Engaging at this stage in a policy discussion seems premature (even though it is undoubtedly more interesting).

The descriptions as used in the 2012 AGB (see Martin’s email dd 08/01 and as presented on the call yesterday) seem workable to me. Has anyone come up with a name that s/he considers to be a geographic name that does not fit?

Kind Regards,
Peter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180118/bd95f8f3/attachment.html>