Dear Manuel,

Typically, an update on the work of the CCWG Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs (CWG-UCTN) is given during the ccNSO Members Meeting, during the session entitled “Working Group updates. At ICANN59, the idea is to dedicate a 50 minute session to country and territory names, during the ccNSO Member Days. (Based on the current draft agenda, which is still subject to changes, and will be published shortly on the ccNSO website)

As Katrina previously mentioned, this topic is getting more and more attention, not only from our community.

The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP for instance is organising a webinar about geographic names at the top level, on Tuesday 25 April 2017 – Two webinars will take place; one from 15:00-17:00 UTC and the second from 22:00-0:00 UTC. The webinar will be the beginning of a discussion that will continue at ICANN59. The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP leadership team will be holding an extended session in Johannesburg to work through the positions presented in the webinars and to propose solutions seeking common ground on a way forward.

Additional information about the webinar and the Johannesburg session: consult the WG wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/p77RAw.

Best regards,

Joke Braeken

ccNSO Policy Advisor

joke.braeken@icann.org

Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO

Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/

http://ccnso.icann.org

From: Manuel Haces Aviña <mhaces@nic.mx>
Date: Tuesday, 4 April 2017 at 23:34
To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>, "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org>
Cc: 'Rosalia Morales' <ROSALIA.MORALES@nic.cr>, Roger Francisco Castillo <rcastillo@nic.mx>, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Ext] Have your ccNSO input on ICANN Board Decision

Dear Katrina,

Thank you very much indeed; your responses are deeply appreciated and it gives us clarity on why the topic was –on our initial feeling- not on the radar of this meeting.

I reckon that the lack of consensus inwards ccNSO can be a stopper, but in any case, are there any plans within ccNSO to bring back to topic in any form on subsequent meetings?.

Thank you very much.

Manuel

From: Katrina Sataki [mailto:katrina@nic.lv]
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 9:12 AM
To: Manuel Haces Aviña <mhaces@nic.mx>; ccnso-council@icann.org
Cc: 'Rosalia Morales' <ROSALIA.MORALES@nic.cr>; Roger Francisco Castillo <rcastillo@nic.mx>; 'Joke Braeken' <joke.braeken@icann.org>; 'Bart Boswinkel' <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Ext] Have your ccNSO input on ICANN Board Decision

Dear Manuel,

First, please accept my apologies for the late response and let me thank you for raising this issue. I know from conversations with others and discussion at the Copenhagen meeting, the topic of use of country and territory names in domain names in general is getting more and more attention from our community. However, to my knowledge the ccNSO does not have a position with respect to the use of the country and territory names (as two letter codes or in any other way) as second level domains under new gTLDs.

As you know the practices across ccTLDs vary significantly with respect to the use of country and territory names at second level: some ccTLDs do not allow registration of any country or territory name, while others are completely liberal. This difference in views has also been expressed by the members particpating in dicussions with respect to the use of the country and territory names as SLD for new gTLDs in metings with the GAC (see for example: http://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2013/en/schedule/tue-gac-ccnso/transcript-gac-ccnso-19nov13-en.pdf[archive.icann.org]) . Given the diversity of views, the ccNSO has not come up with a ccNSO opinion or position on this matter.

As to you other question if anything can be done with the Board decision, I assume all the usual and new mechanims are in principle available and should be checked. However if and to what extend they can be succesfully used is something I do not know and do not want to speculate on. I think your approach to ask this question during the Public forum was the right way to move forward.

Finally, I know this topic will come again as part of the discussion around the use of Geographic names in the subsequent procedures and could be part of an anticiapted cross-community session at ICANN 58 in Johannesburg.

I hope this answers your questions.

Kindest regards,

]{atrina

From: Manuel Haces Aviña [mailto:mhaces@nic.mx]
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 9:47 PM
To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>; Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>
Cc: Rosalia Morales <ROSALIA.MORALES@nic.cr>; Roger Francisco Castillo <rcastillo@nic.mx>; Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Ext] Have your ccNSO input on ICANN Board Decision

Dear Bart,

Great!

Thank you very much for conducting my missive.

Dear Katrina,

We are very interested in this issue, and please let me know if I can help answer any further.

Eventhough I’m not physically at Denmark, I am fully available and alert to any development of this issue.

Roger Castillo is present there, in case we need to further clarify anything.

Thanks a lot, and I’ll stand by.

Manuel (.MX)

From: Bart Boswinkel [mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org]
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 12:09 PM
To: Manuel Haces Aviña <mhaces@nic.mx>; Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>
Cc: Rosalia Morales <ROSALIA.MORALES@nic.cr>; Roger Francisco Castillo <rcastillo@nic.mx>; Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ext] Have your ccNSO input on ICANN Board Decision

Dear Manuel,

I forward your letter to Katrina Sataki, chair of the ccNSO.

This is clearly a point for the ccNSO Council and not for the secretariat.

Thank you for your letter and kind regards,

Bart

From: Manuel Haces Aviña <mhaces@nic.mx>
Date: Monday 13 March 2017 at 19:02
To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org>
Cc: Rosalia Morales <ROSALIA.MORALES@nic.cr>, Roger Francisco Castillo <rcastillo@nic.mx>
Subject: [Ext] Have your ccNSO input on ICANN Board Decision

Dear Bart,

It is superb to be in touch again.

I am the Policy & Regulation person of NIC México (.MX ccTLD manager and NIR). We’ve met on Dublin on October 2015.

Hope everything’s going dandy at Denmark and this email doesn’t add-up to the rush the ICANN meetings are. ;)

Bart, at .MX and at other ccTLDs we are worried about the recent ICANN Board Decision 2016.11.08.15 that allows ngTLDs to open the cc as a sld.

We feel that our concerns were not properly attended during the comment period, we don’t see any substantial concern properly reflected on the Board’s decision.

Our main concerns are (you can read the full LACTLD position here[lactld.org])

· The resolution increases complexity as national identification shall be done within the ccTLD and not below a ngTLD.

· The measures to avoid confusion don’t offer any deterrent to avoid confusion. They are sole priority “sunrise” offerings that will imply the ccTLD protecting the 2 char. cc .

· We had concerns over ngTLD Registry Operators communicating with the Government and the ccTLD manager and opening-approval. That is actually not happening, neither the Government nor the ccTLD are proactively being seeked after (we second-handedly got notice of a contact to our Mexican Government from a Registry that operates 40 ngTLDs. Fortunate enough, we have good relations with our representative but that clearly shows our concern of not being contacted materialized). We explicitly proposed that if the Registry doesn’t had explicit approval from both parties, then it was not allowed to.

What’s the stance on ccNSO on this issue? Have we stated any position on this?. So far I have not been able to properly apprehend the discussion within ccNSO, I would love to have a little bit of guidance on this issue.

By any chance do you know if anything that can be done to rollback this Board decision, or at least mitigate/regulate it?. Consequently, are there any guidelines for this Board decision to be operationalized? There are some concerns of lack of guidelines to operationalize, in case a rollback aint’ possible. Neither, we are not aware of what are the obligations derived of the priority offering if we do accept it.

I am aware that the GAC has a list of contacts of who to engage for any kind of this options. Do you know if the ccNSO has something similar?. That way we won’t be off-the-hook.

I would like to stress that we are against that Board Decision, and we feel our expressed concerns have not been taken into consideration.

We hope we can have your kindest support on how to proceed, if we can do something.

I send the warmest regards,

Manuel Haces

NIC México (.MX)

p.s. cc. Rosalía Morales (NIC.CR), Roger Castillo (NIC.MX) for their knowledge.

Este mensaje contiene información confidencial y se entiende dirigido y para uso exclusivo del destinatario. Si recibes este mensaje y no eres el destinatario por favor elimínalo, ya que difundir, revelar, copiar o tomar cualquier acción basada en el contenido está estrictamente prohibido. Network Information Center México, S.C., ubicado en Ave. Eugenio Garza Sada 427 L4-6 Col. Altavista, Monterrey, México, C.P. 64840 recaba tus datos personales necesarios para: la prestación, estudio, análisis y mejora del servicio, la realización de comunicaciones y notificaciones; la transferencia y publicación en los casos aplicables; el cumplimiento de la relación existente; así como para la prevención o denuncia en la comisión de ilícitos. Si eres colaborador o candidato a colaborador de NIC México, tus datos serán utilizados para: la creación y administración de tu perfil como profesionista; el otorgamiento de herramientas de trabajo; la realización de estudios; el otorgamiento de programas y beneficios para mejorar tu desarrollo profesional; la gestión y administración de servicios de pago y/o nómina; así como para contacto y/o notificaciones. Si participas en promociones o en estudios podrás dejar de participar. Para mayor información revisa el Aviso de Privacidad[nicmexico.mx].

This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee please delete it, since the dissemination, distribuition, copy or taking any action in reliance on the contents is strictly prohibited. Network Information Center Mexico, S.C., located on Av. Eugenio Garza Sada 427 Col. Altavista L4-6, Monterrey, Mexico, CP 64840 collects your personal data which is necessary to: provide, research, analyze and improve the service; send communications and notices; transfer and publish your personal data when applicable; fulfill the existing relationship; prevent or inform in the commission of unlawful acts or events. If the data is processed in your quality of candidate or collaborator of NIC Mexico, the purpose of treatment is to: create and manage your profile as a professional; provide you with working tools; conduct studies; grant benefits and programs to enhance your professional development; manage and administrate payment services and/or payroll; as well as to contact you. If you participate in promotions or surveys you may stop or quit your participation at any time. For more information read the Privacy Note[nicmexico.mx].