[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Message to RALO liaisons to WT5

Thu Aug 9 07:06:02 UTC 2018

Thank you so much Greg. Thats a great starting point that RALO reps can
send out to our members for any further inputs. Should be interesting to
see what we get back.

 Very much appreciated.

Yrjo shall we time frame these responses to be returned in a week (?) so
that we can all look over what we've got?

Maureen

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 1:42 pm Greg Shatan <gregshatanisoc at gmail.com> wrote:

> Maureen,
>
> Here are my reactions to the first set of proposed recommendations
> discussed today in WT5.  As you can see I support, most -- but not all --
> of the current proposed recommendations.  Perhaps we can use this as a
> jumping-off point in some fashion.
>
> *PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS*
>
> *G. SHATAN RESPONSE*
>
> *RECOMMENDATION #1:*
>
>
>
> All two-character letter-letter ASCII combinations for existing and future
> country codes.
>
> I am willing to support this recommendation, in order to preserve the
> unique character of 2-character letter-letter ASCII codes as ccTLDs.
>
> This should not extend to any two-character codes involving numbers or
> non-ASCII characters.  First, these are not within our remit (see WT2).
> Second, they do not share the unique character that letter-letter codes
> have.
>
> *RECOMMENDATION #2:*
>
>
>
> Reserved and unavailable for delegation:
>
>    - alpha-3 code listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard.
>
> I do not support this recommendation as written.  There is no history of
> alpha-3 codes being used as country identifiers in the top level domain
> name space.  In many cases, the alpha-3 codes do not have a special
> connection to the country listed, other than its use in the alpha-3 list.
> Furthermore, at least 49 alpha 3 codes have other substantial meanings: as
> words in English or another language, as  an abbreviation with a commonly
> understood meaning (e.g., BRB), are already in use (COM) or could be
> confusing if used geographically (e.g., NIC).
>
> *RECOMMENDATION #3:*
>
>
>
> Reserved and unavailable for delegation:
>
>    - Long-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard in the official
>    language(s) of the country and the official UN languages.
>
> I am willing to support this recommendation for long-form names in the
> official language(s) of the country and the official UN languages.  I would
> not support a recommendation to reserve long form names in all languages.
>
> *RECOMMENDATION #4:*
>
>
>
> Reserved and unavailable for delegation:
>
>    - Short-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard in the official
>    languages of the country and the official UN languages.
>
> Same as Recommendation 3.
>
> *RECOMMENDATION #5:*
>
>
>
> Reserved and unavailable for delegation:
>
>    - Short- or long-form name associated with a code that has been
>    designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency.
>
> This needs to be clarified, and the list of names provided to the group.
> If these are country or territory names, they should already be covered in
> 3 and 4.  If these are not country or territory names, they should be
> reviewed and discussed as a group (if possible) or on a case-by-case basis.
>
> *RECOMMENDATION #6:*
>
>
>
> A country and territory name which is reserved and unavailable for
> delegation:
>
>    - separable component of a country name designated on the “Separable
>    Country Names List.” This list is included as an appendix to the 2012
>    Applicant Guidebook.
>    - The Work Track recommends narrowing reserved names to official
>    languages of the country and the official UN languages.
>
> This involves (i) country names comprised of multiple compounded parts
> (e.g., Bosnia and Herzegovina) and (ii) Countries commonly known by a
> smaller constituent part than the short-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1
> standard (e.g., (Netherlands) Antilles).
>
>
>
> I am willing to support this, consistent with my view on 3 and 4 above.
>
> *RECOMME**NDATION #7**:*
>
>
>
> Reserved and unavailable for delegation:
>
>    - permutation or transposition of any of the names included in items
>    (i) through (v). Permutations include removal of spaces, insertion of
>    punctuation, and addition or removal of grammatical articles like “the.” A
>    transposition is considered a change in the sequence of the long or
>    short–form name, for example, “RepublicCzech” or “IslandsCayman.”
>
> Permutations should apply only to long and short form country and
> territory names and NOT to alpha 2 or alpha 3 letter codes.
>
>
>
> I am willing to support permutations for long and short country names and
> the separable components (i.e., 3, 4 and 6 above).
>
>
>
> I do not support permutations for alpha 2 or 3 letter codes.
>
> *RECOMMENDATION #8:*
>
>
>
> Reserved and unavailable for delegation:
>
>    - name by which a country is commonly known, as demonstrated by
>    evidence that the country is recognized by that name by an
>    intergovernmental or treaty organization.
>
> Needs further review.
>
> Do we have examples where this was invoked, or any other examples?
>
>
> Greg
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:04 PM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone  from this ALAC group disagree with the proposals in the WT5
>> consensus document on the policy considerations?
>>
>> We could use this as a starter for discussion to present to the WT5
>> co-Chairs.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:57 AM, Yrjö Länsipuro <
>> yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Dear fellow RALO WT5 liaisons,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > An action item from the ALAC call 24 April asks me to take the
>> initiative
>> > to develop a common ALAC position on geographic names in the subsequent
>> > gTLD procedures. During  that call,  Alan suggested that this effort
>> > could involve the five RALO liaisons to the WT5 and other interested
>> > people, and mentioned also CPWG.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I have not acted so far on this AI, because in my view, our only
>> > meaningful contribution to the WT5 process would be to suggest
>> compromises
>> > to its most difficult issues, including  names of non-capital cities,
>> > which WT5 has spent most of its time on, mostly engaged in a  fruitless
>> > dispute between the extremes.  The atmosphere so far might not have been
>> > conducive for discussing compromise proposals...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > However,  at ICANN62, there finally was a push by co-chairs for “meeting
>> > in the middle”, especially concerning non-capital cities, and for
>> "seeking
>> > convergence on principles." See slides of the 28 June session:
>> > https://static.ptbl.co/static/attachments/179943/1530207670.
>> > pdf?1530207670
>> > <
>> https://static.ptbl.co/static/attachments/179943/1530207670.pdf?1530207670
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Now might be the time for an ALAC contribution along the lines that Alan
>> > has often repeated: there should be no big winners and big losers in
>> the WT
>> > 5.  In others words, a compromise, something in the middle.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > That’s why I’m asking for your thoughts, ideas and suggestions on how we
>> > could facilitate finding compromises in the WT5, especially on the
>> issue of
>> > non-capital cities. This is late in the day in the life of WT5, so
>> please
>> > react soon. After an email exchange, we could ask the staff to arrange a
>> > call, if necessary.  I’m also asking CPWG to take note of this effort,
>> the
>> > results of which I hope could be presented to CPWG soon.
>> >
>> >
>> > Yrjö
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>> _______________________________________________
>> GTLD-WG mailing list
>> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>>
>> Working Group direct URL:
>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180809/4feb9eb8/attachment-0001.html>