[lac-discuss-en] Fwd: [Ctn-crosscom] Todays agenda



Estimados,

les adjunto dos links mas que no pude encontrar ayer sobre el proceso del GAC y la delegación de los códigos de país de 2 letras al segundo nivel. Estos links me los pasó el secretariado del GAC.

Saludos

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
Forwarded message:

From: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <carlosraulg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Ctn-crosscom] Todays agenda
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:07:46 +0000

Dear Carlos,
The GDD webpage for this matter is at https://www.icann.org/resources/two-character-labels/ but it doesn't take the form of any table. You can also get an overview of the steps foreseen regarding release of 2-char labels at a web page on the GAC website, notably at https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Two-Letter+Second-Level+Domains .
Hope this is somewhat helpful.
All the best
Olof

-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. [mailto:carlosraulg@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 7:54 PM
To: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Fwd: [Ctn-crosscom] Todays agenda

Dear Olof,

hope all is well on your side. As the discussion on the use of 2 -letter codes as Country and Territory names as a TLD warms up for the next ICANN meeting. I have a quick question for you: Where can I find a summary or table of what Governments answered about the delegation of the country 2 -letter codes as a Second Level Domain to the new gTLDs?

Thank you very much for your help.

Best regards

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
Forwarded message:

From: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@xxxxxxxxx>
To: ctn-crosscom@xxxxxxxxx <ctn-crosscom@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] Todays agenda
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:32:03 +0000

Dear all,
Please find included latest version of the Progress report and Interim
paper.

Proposed agenda:

-         Welcome and Roll call

- Progress report. Discussion recommendation 2 ( Alternative A
or B, other)

-         Presentation Progress report to community

-         Hyderabad meeting:

o   F-2-f session WG

o   Other session (ccNSO- GNSO Council meeting, ccNSO GAC- meeting,
ccNSO-Board meeting)

-         Draft Interim paper staff update

-         AOB & Closure

Kind regards,
Bart

Changes Progres report
The recommendations have been updated follwing the discussions of two
weeks ago. Although a long discussion was held on the impact of
closure of this WG , to date no alternatives were suggested. Please
note that recommendation 1 and 3 were adopted 4 weeks ago.  Two weeks
ago the discussion focused on the alternatives and no conclusion was
reached. If the progress report needs to be out in time for the
Hyderabad meeting, this is a matter of urgency.

Recommendations Progress Report
In light of the need for further work, the complexity of the issue at
hand, the aforementioned inconsistencies between various ICANN
policies, and the limited mandate of the CWG on the use of Country and
Territory Names as TLDs, the CWG makes the following recommendations:

Recommendation 1
The CWG unanimously recommends that the ICANN community consolidate
all policy efforts relating to geographic names (as that term has
traditionally very broadly been defined in the ICANN environment to
this point) to enable in-depth analyses and discussions on all aspects related to all geographic-related names at all levels of the DNS. This
is the only way, in our view, to determine whether a harmonized
framework is truly achievable.

Recommendation 2 Alternative A
The CWG could not agree unanimously on the following:
Future work should take place with the authority of a policy
development process under ICANN’s Bylaws, with a clearly drafted
Charter or scope of works that sets out how conclusions and
recommendations will inform that policy development process. This
addresses a key deficiency of this CWG, as it has not been made clear
how the group’s work can or will be incorporated in policy-making
pursuant to ICANN’s Bylaws.

Some members of the WG raised the concern that issues that are in
scope of both the ccNSO and GNSO policy development processes, for
example how full names of countries and territories other than Latin
scripts are dealt with, should be addressed through a coordinated
effort under both processes.

Recommendation 2 Alternative B
To ensure that the conclusions and recommendations of a CWG will at
one point have the authority of a policy developed through the
relevant processes under ICANN’s Bylaws, future work should take place
with a clear view on how this work at some point will reach the
authority of a policy developed as or relates to and provides input to
formal policy development processes. With regard to the subject
matter, the use of country and territory names as TLDs the CWG notes
that this should be defined with respect to both the ccNSO and GNSO
Policy development processes. Due to the overlapping definitions used
under existing policies, additional policy developed by one group,
impact and has an effect upon the policy developed for another group.
This may be achieved through a clearly drafted Charter or scope of
works that sets out how these policy development processes will be
informed. This addresses a key deficiency this CWG has encountered, as
it has not been made clear how the group’s work can or will be
incorporated in policy-making pursuant to ICANN’s Bylaws.

Recommendation 3
Future policy development work must facilitate an all-inclusive
dialogue to ensure that all members of the community have the
opportunity to participate. Again, we believe that this is the only
way to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable.

Draft Interim Paper
Staff has also been working on the interim paper. We have cleaned it
up on the basis of the feed-back received to date, updating some of
the sections and checking whether the “research questions” in section
4 of the paper (Methodology) are addressed in section 5. 1 on
two-letter codes. If so that provides a starting point for the
conclusion of no conclusion on 3-letter codes.
As to section 4 methodology, it now includes a reference to the
surveys/ questionnaires on two-and three letter codes. The results are
included in Annex D.

In addition, Annex C has been added: listing of the members,
participants and observers of the WG

We have also included the final section (6) the observations,
conclusions and recommendations of the progress report.

_______________________________________________
Ctn-crosscom mailing list
Ctn-crosscom@xxxxxxxxx
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
_______________________________________________
lac-discuss-en mailing list
lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en