[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Marita Moll mmoll at ca.inter.net
Sat Aug 11 19:29:57 UTC 2018


Yes, I have been following this as well and am supporting this wording.

Marita


On 8/11/2018 9:14 PM, Alfredo Calderon wrote:
> I have been following the recent discussion of 3 letter TLD’s by 
> Carlos Raul and the rest of the group members.
>
> Carlos Raul’s wording
>
> “ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter 
> Codes submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers 
> and public interest/public benefit entities.”
>
> makes sense. We ICANN org would be delegating the responsibility to 
> governments to ensure the validity of the requests. Therefore I 
> support Carlos Raul’s suggestion.
>
> Alfredo Calderon
> Email: calderon.alfredo at gmail.com <mailto:calderon.alfredo at gmail.com>
> Twitter: acalderon52
> LinkedIn: pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52 
> <http://pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52>
> Skype: alfredo_1212
> Business Card: http://myonepage.com/acalderon
> Blog: aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com 
> <http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com>
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2018, at 12:00 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez 
> <carlosraul at gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul at gutierrez.se>> wrote:
>
>> Dear Annebeth,
>>
>> As you have heard me (too) many times before, I admire the track 
>> record of preceding, clearly focused public interest 3 letter 
>> geo-TLDs, like the ones from Catalonia in Spain, Brittany's in 
>> France, and Serbia's 3 letter TLDs
>>
>> Now that I re-stated my rationale for such a clear-cut public 
>> interest case in an email to Rosalia (for geo use ONLY, 
>> accessible -i.e. cheap- and non-profit), I hereby submit to the WT my 
>> final revised language suggestion, which is ONLY applicable for 
>> 3-Letter codes. It would substitute the following final paragraph in 
>> the relevant section which deals with 3 Letter codes: “The SubPro may 
>> want to consider recommending whether any future 
>> application/revision/delegation process to be established (either 
>> generic or restricted to the Geographic categories only), should 
>> determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as 
>> relevant public international, national or sub-national public 
>> authorities, may apply for country and territory names"
>>
>> My suggestion for a FORWARD looking option is:
>>
>> “ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter 
>> Codes submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers 
>> and public interest/public benefit entities.”
>> This paragraph is, in my view, a sensible part of a forward-looking 
>> recommendation that could go ahead with broader WT consensus. And if 
>> it does not, please make sure it is recorded as an objection against 
>> a permanent restriction of the delegation of ISO 3letter list.
>>
>> Thanks to all,
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>> carlosraul at gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul at gutierrez.se>
>> +506 8837 7176
>> Aparatado 1571-1000
>> COSTA RICA
>>
>>
>>
>> El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió:
>>
>>> Hi Carlos
>>> Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 
>>> 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will 
>>> automatically be gTLDs. You don't think that will disturb the 
>>> distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are 
>>> ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Annebeth
>>>
>>>
>>> Annebeth B Lange
>>> Special Adviser International Policy
>>> UNINETT Norid AS
>>> Phone: +47 959 11 559
>>> Mail: annebeth.lange at norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange at norid.no>
>>>
>>> 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez 
>>> <carlosraul at gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul at gutierrez.se>>:
>>>>
>>>> My comments to today's call:
>>>>
>>>> 1. "The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future 
>>>> process should be established or determine if, when, and how 
>>>> specific interested parties, such as relevant government 
>>>> authorities, may apply for country and territory names" This 
>>>> paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking 
>>>> recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could 
>>>> be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. 
>>>>  A shorter more concise version? A more "liberal" version? How 
>>>> about: "ICANN may consider applications by specific interested 
>>>> parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not 
>>>> current or future countries or territories."  Ps: The text in 
>>>> Recommendation 1 "reserving ALL two character letter letter" 
>>>> combinations-  can be enhanced.  I wonder if it's truly ALL, or if 
>>>> the potential for future countries and potential combinations is 
>>>> really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can't 
>>>> think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we 
>>>> could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad 
>>>> community support to move forward.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to 
>>>> "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, 
>>>> unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names 
>>>> discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, 
>>>> cultural, linguistic and other social  elements, ,like Apache Nation
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>>>> carlosraul at gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul at gutierrez.se>
>>>> +506 8837 7176
>>>> Aparatado 1571-1000
>>>> COSTA RICA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
>>>>
>>>>     Dear Work Track members,
>>>>
>>>>     Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft
>>>>     recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised
>>>>     text includes clarifications and typo corrections only.
>>>>     Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be
>>>>     discussed further on today's call.
>>>>
>>>>     Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>>     Emily
>>>>
>>>>     *From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>>>     <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org
>>>>     <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of
>>>>     Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org
>>>>     <mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>>
>>>>     *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45
>>>>     *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>>>>     <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>"
>>>>     <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>>>>     <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
>>>>     *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan &
>>>>     Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review
>>>>     before our call.
>>>>
>>>>     Dear Work Track members,
>>>>
>>>>     Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on
>>>>     Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
>>>>
>>>>     1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates
>>>>     2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan
>>>>     3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names
>>>>     4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms
>>>>     5. AOB
>>>>
>>>>     On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work
>>>>     plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial
>>>>     Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline,
>>>>     the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs
>>>>     can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New
>>>>     gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for
>>>>     delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is
>>>>     attached.
>>>>
>>>>     As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be
>>>>     holding a series of consensus calls on potential
>>>>     recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will
>>>>     be introduced in clusters, with the first set of
>>>>     recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The
>>>>     draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday,
>>>>     are attached.*Work Track members are encouraged to review and
>>>>     provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the
>>>>     call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open
>>>>     the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call.
>>>>     For more information on the consensus call process that will be
>>>>     followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section
>>>>     3.6:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
>>>>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=>.
>>>>
>>>>     If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to
>>>>     send an apology, please emailgnso-secs at icann.org
>>>>     <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>.
>>>>
>>>>     Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>>     WT5 Co-Leads
>>>>
>>>>     Annebeth Lange
>>>>
>>>>     Javier Rua
>>>>
>>>>     Olga Cavalli
>>>>
>>>>     Martin Sutton
>>>>
>>>>     The contents of this email message and any attachments are
>>>>     intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain
>>>>     confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally
>>>>     protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended
>>>>     recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message
>>>>     has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
>>>>     the sender by reply email and then delete this message and
>>>>     any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
>>>>     hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or
>>>>     storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>     Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>>>>     Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>>>>     <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>>>
>>>> <Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
>>>> <Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180811/010a0213/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list