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

Thu Aug 9 18:18:50 UTC 2018

Kaili and all,

I have no objection sending this out to the entire At-Large.

Best regards,

Greg

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 12:32 PM Kan Kaili <kankaili at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1    Great way to work on policy issues.  Could be sent to the entire
> At-Large?
>
> Kaili
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
> *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanisoc at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com> ; CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
> ; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> ; Ali Hussein
> <ali at hussein.me.ke> ; John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 09, 2018 3:06 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Message to RALO liaisons to WT5
>
> 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
>>
>> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180809/afe15f73/attachment-0001.html>