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



De acuerdo!
Saludos 

Enviado desde mi iPhone

> El 18 oct. 2016, a las 08:39, Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob@xxxxxxxxx> 
> escribió:
> 
> Muchas gracias Carlos!!
> 
> Maritza por favor agrégalos a la wiki.
> 
> 
> Abrazos
> 
> Enviado desde mi iPhone
> 
>> El 18-10-2016, a las 10:37, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
>> escribió:
>> 
>> 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
_______________________________________________