The reason that we are doing a consensus call now is that we have not formally reached consensus yet on any recommendation. All we had before was the temperature of the room, at best. Now is the time to test whether we have consensus — not to say that the there was a consensus already and it’s too late to say anything but yes. That would not be a good test of consensus nor would it be a freely-reached agreement on consensus. Let’s keep in mind that the Co-Chairs are the only ones empowered to declare whether or not we have consensus and what that level of consensus. Let’s also keep in mind that any consensus level below full consensus implies some level of disagreement. As such, we can have “consensus” even while one or a few people disagree. The issue is whether we have strong agreement on consensus (at some level). In order to accurately assess the level of consensus, the Co-Chairs will need to see both the level of support and the level of disagreement. For these reasons , it’s actually quite important to let the “dissenters” speak out. And, yes, every once in a while, the dissent becomes the consensus. More often the dissent influences the consensus and strengthens it. So let’s let the consensus process work. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 6:17 PM Rosalía Morales <rosalia.morales@nic.cr> wrote:
Carlos, I’m not questioning your position. Everyone has their own right to their opinions. My opinion is that we should try to move on. Best, Rosalía
Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ------------------------------ *From:* Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> *Sent:* Friday, August 10, 2018 3:57:27 PM *To:* Rosalía Morales; Javier Rua *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Rosalía
I submitted my position on 3 letter codes delegation in written form well before San Juan.
My position goes back to the CWG on the same issue years ago, also on record.
I can always live with a minority position here.
On August 10, 2018 10:27:56 AM CST, "Rosalía Morales" < rosalia.morales@nic.cr> wrote:
Dear All,
We discussed the issue on 3 letter codes for months and had come to a consensus in our face to face meeting in San Juan. I strongly believe we should stick to our previous agreements and move on.
Best, Rosalía
On Aug 9, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
Carlos,
I see you support keeping the current status of two letter-letter country/territory codes. I think that’s in line with general WT thinking and I feel has broad support.
On the other hand, like some other WT members you mention preference for a future policy that’s a bit more liberal or “pro delegation” in regards 3 letter codes that are geonames, limiting the possible applicants to -governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and “public interest entities”.
Could you expand on these “public interest entities”? Could you suggest language in the pertinent “Recommendation” for WT consideration?
Thx
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se> wrote:
Dear Annebeth
I fully support Recommendation #1 AS IS
no changes there
I don't support the recommendation on ISO 3 letter (forgot the number). ISO 3 letter codes should be delegated to Govs, ccTLD managers or any other interested PUBLIC INTEREST entities
Don't know if this answers your question --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@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@norid.no
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@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@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@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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-gn... [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5