Re: [ALAC] [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Message to RALO liaisons to WT5
Dear Kaili, Thank you for your suggestion. I'm resending the message to the ALAC list. Best, Yrjö ________________________________ From: Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 12:58 PM To: Maureen Hilyard; Ali Hussein; carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com; mmoll@ca.inter.net; cpwg@icann.org; euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: Alan Greenberg; John Laprise; staff@atlarge.icann.org; ocl@gih.com Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Message to RALO liaisons to WT5 Dear all, At Maureen's suggestion, I'm sending to you, for your comments, a table showing the draft recommendations discussed at the WT5 meeting yesterday (8 August) and the responses from Greg Shatan from GNSO (see below). At the meeting, the main issue was whether country and territory names (long and short names) should be reserved (a) in all languages, as in the 2012 AGB or (b) in the six UN languages and the official languages of the country in question. (Recommendations #3 and #4) Even though it was pointed out that the "all languages" provision didn't cause problems in the 2012 round, there was an emerging consensus that it is unrealistic if taken literally (there are about 6 500 languages in thr world). On the other had, it was noted that the six UN languages reflect the world as it was right after WWII, and important international languages are not included. Also, languages listed as "official" in the countries of the world (eg., in the UN database https://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/geonames/ <https://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/geonames/> don't cover all languages widely spoken in them. A view was expressed that all languages by which communities in a country designate that country should be covered. On three-letter codes covered by recommendation #2, there is a GAC advice from 2016 that asks the community not to rush into a removal of the Applicant Guidebook protection of ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes, as this move could have political ramifications https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2016-06-30+Use+of+3-letter+codes+in+... There is clearly a need for compromise solutions, and we could make a valuable contribution in proposing "something in between". Please comment within the time frame of a week, as Maureen suggests. Best, Yrjö ________________________________ From: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 10:06 AM To: Greg Shatan Cc: Yrjö Länsipuro; CPWG; Alan Greenberg; Ali Hussein; John Laprise Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] 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@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanisoc@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. RECOMMENDATION #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@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@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@hotmail.com<mailto:yrjo_lansipuro@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<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ptbl.co%2Fstatic%2Fattachments%2F179943%2F1530207670&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbb44abfd75694d624d2408d5fdc698fe%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636693951766766434&sdata=bThboAom5qjmMP5p9JIvV71V4bIr%2BycjYp8krHx3RQA%3D&reserved=0>. pdf?1530207670 <https://static.ptbl.co/static/attachments/179943/1530207670.pdf?1530207670<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ptbl.co%2Fstatic%2Fattachments%2F179943%2F1530207670.pdf%3F1530207670&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbb44abfd75694d624d2408d5fdc698fe%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636693951766766434&sdata=TwcYzflsNH2btt%2BIL56hE8YYoSzsgWPe%2F7oUahHOTx8%3D&reserved=0>>
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@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbb44abfd75694d624d2408d5fdc698fe%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636693951766766434&sdata=Iksps67Wf8Erx0m9CdoU3WZv%2BEFkR%2FrSB5UN5%2BgbaUU%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarge-lists.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgtld-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbb44abfd75694d624d2408d5fdc698fe%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636693951766766434&sdata=qpUXCvUH95psWwThL1Z2zT2T0vJOIhN3Y3CbRB9yeeY%3D&reserved=0> Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fdisplay%2Fatlarge%2FNew%2BGTLDs&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbb44abfd75694d624d2408d5fdc698fe%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636693951766766434&sdata=e8vsfn6tsxfkRa0eh4p%2BoC%2BhoMVHk0k37GogUmJPovo%3D&reserved=0>
Yrijö, Thanks! I think these are all very pertinent comments! Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 9, 2018, at 2:29 PM, Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dear Kaili,
Thank you for your suggestion. I'm resending the message to the ALAC list.
Best,
Yrjö From: Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 12:58 PM To: Maureen Hilyard; Ali Hussein; carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com; mmoll@ca.inter.net; cpwg@icann.org; euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: Alan Greenberg; John Laprise; staff@atlarge.icann.org; ocl@gih.com Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Message to RALO liaisons to WT5
Dear all,
At Maureen's suggestion, I'm sending to you, for your comments, a table showing the draft recommendations discussed at the WT5 meeting yesterday (8 August) and the responses from Greg Shatan from GNSO (see below).
At the meeting, the main issue was whether country and territory names (long and short names) should be reserved (a) in all languages, as in the 2012 AGB or (b) in the six UN languages and the official languages of the country in question. (Recommendations #3 and #4)
Even though it was pointed out that the "all languages" provision didn't cause problems in the 2012 round, there was an emerging consensus that it is unrealistic if taken literally (there are about 6 500 languages in thr world). On the other had, it was noted that the six UN languages reflect the world as it was right after WWII, and important international languages are not included. Also, languages listed as "official" in the countries of the world (eg., in the UN database https://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/geonames/ don't cover all languages widely spoken in them. A view was expressed that all languages by which communities in a country designate that country should be covered.
On three-letter codes covered by recommendation #2, there is a GAC advice from 2016 that asks the community not to rush into a removal of the Applicant Guidebook protection of ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes, as this move could have political ramifications https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2016-06-30+Use+of+3-letter+codes+in+...
There is clearly a need for compromise solutions, and we could make a valuable contribution in proposing "something in between". Please comment within the time frame of a week, as Maureen suggests.
Best,
Yrjö
From: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 10:06 AM To: Greg Shatan Cc: Yrjö Länsipuro; CPWG; Alan Greenberg; Ali Hussein; John Laprise Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] 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@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.
RECOMMENDATION #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@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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@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 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
participants (2)
-
Javier Rua -
Yrjö Länsipuro