[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 20 October 2018 (ICANN63)

[Carlos Raul Gutierrez]

Thank you very much Julie! 

For the record I want to restate in written form my specific request
made yesterday during the session after Jorge Cancio's proposals before
the coffee, as follows 

In order to correctly dimension the scope of the issue at hand and to
evaluate the <quote> (b) relevant rules contained in the 2012 Guidebook,
such as the Geographic Names Review procedure, Geographic Names Extended
Evaluation, and Objection Procedures; <unquote> I think it necessary to
add the facts and results from the last round, in particular give
readers THE EXACT NUMBER ON HOW MANY APPLICATIONS CAME IN WITH THE
PRINCIPAL OBJECTIVE TO USE AS A GEOGRAPHIC TLD AND WHERE DELEGATED OR
NOT (AND FOR WHAT REASONS NOT DELEGATED), AS OPPOSED TO APPLICATIONS
WITH A CLEARLY DEFINED GEOGRAPHIC NAME APPLIED FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE
THAN USING IT FOR GEOGRAPHIC PURPOSES AND WHERE FINALLY DELEGATED OR NOT
(AND FOR WHAT REASONS NOT DELEGATED).  In my view, any applicant that
decided to pull back application after a GAC early warning and got
reimbursed, should also be considered as a successful result in terms of
the AGBs effectiveness.  

This factual framework is not only missing in the draft but is  my view
necessary, no only to give the proper background to readers and
decisions makers outside of the direct participants in the working
group, but also as basis and reality check for  the rationale for
possible future recommendations coming out of this WT5. I can' avoid to
notice in the present draft a tendency to use this WT5 as a backdoor to
revision history, putting the results of the last round (and or the AGB)
in a negative light of conflict and unpredictability. It is my personal
interpretation based on the CCT Review that the last round, a well as
geoTLD delegations previous to the last round, even for 3-letter codes
like .asia, .lat, .cat, .bzh and .срб should be considered as successful
delegation of geoTLDs in terms of enhancing competition, consumer choice
and consumer trust, which in my view are the primary objectives of the
expansion of the DNS space. 

If participants want to focus on the few exceptional cases that did not
end in a satisfactory delegation, they should be discussed in the proper
context of the overall numbers and any specific recommendations should
focus in the causes for the real issues, instead of an overall change in
the policies and AGB that delivered a majority of positive results. 

Thank you for properly recording my comment with the session documents.

---
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez 
carlosraul at gutierrez.se 
+506 8837 7176 
Aparatado 1571-1000 
COSTA RICA

El 2018-10-20 14:43, Julie Hedlund escribió:

> Dear Work Track 5 members, 
> 
> Please see attached the action items and notes from the Work Track 5 meeting sessions 1-3 today (20 October) at ICANN63.  _These high-level notes are designed to help WT5 members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-10-20+ICANN63+Barcelona+-+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Work+Track+5. _ 
> 
> Please also find attached the slides. 
> 
> Kind regards, 
> 
> Julie 
> 
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181021/71aabf06/attachment-0001.html>