Dear Emily
As a threshold consideration: as there is no clear “room consensus” on this question I feel that there should be no preference given to any of the, as I see, three main
options at hand: (1) maintain “all languages”; (2) official languages and official UN languages; (3) some intermediate solution covering all languages commonly used in a given country to identify its name… (there could be several options: “common languages”;
“commonly used languages”; “relevant national, regional and community languages”, etc.)
Therefore either we have the AGB (amended) language for the three main options or we have it for none. We cannot just have the amended language as “suggested recommendation”
reflecting only option (2) above.
Thanks for considering and best regards
Jorge
Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>
Im Auftrag von Emily Barabas
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. August 2018 15:44
An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Additional Input Requested - "in any language"
Dear all,
On our call yesterday there was some robust discussion about draft recommendations 3, 4, and 6, which suggest changing “in any language” to
“official languages of the country and the official UN languages” for several AGB categories. Please reply to this thread to provide additional input on the suggested edits or alternate options listed
at the bottom of this message. For reference, here is an excerpt of AGB text with redline reflecting suggested recommendations:
2.2.1.4.1 Treatment of Country or Territory Names
Applications for strings that are country or territory names will not be approved, as they are not available under the New gTLD Program
in this application round. A string shall be considered to be a country or territory name if:
·
it is a long-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the long-form name in any language official languages
of the country and the official UN languages.
·
it is a short-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the short-form name in any language official languages
of the country and the official UN languages.
·
it is a separable component of a country name designated on the “Separable Country Names List,” or is a translation of a name appearing on the list, in any language official
languages of the country and the official UN languages. See the Annex at the end of this module.
Below you will find an excerpt from the Working Document (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRUXAo/edit
[docs.google.com]) highlighting some of the ideas and arguments shared on the mailing list and on calls:
Some Work Track members stated that the text “in any language” results in a very large number of reserved strings and does not provide a clear and objective list that can be used as reference. From
this perspective, the provision is not predictable or transparent. One Work Track member also noted that some languages are spoken by very few people, therefore reserving representations in all languages may not be appropriate. From another perspective, “in
any language” should remain in place unless there is a factual basis for limiting the languages covered in this provision. Many languages may be spoken by and relevant to communities within a given country, and the list should therefore not be limited. Work
Track members suggested the following possible options as alternatives to “in any language”:
Kind regards,
Emily
From:
Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, 8 August 2018 at 21:19
To: Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com>
Cc: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no>, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com>, "martin@brandregistrygroup.org"
<martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Good idea to start a thread on this, Javier. It sounds like two possible options are removing the paragraph or editing. Third option: It also sounds like some people (specifically Carlos and Christopher) want WT5 to address
the issue of if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names. Do we want to open this further for discussion? Or consider this out of scope at this time?
If we don’t want to reopen the question too much, we could simply ask if there are any strong objections to removing the text.
Staff can send out the email if you would like us to do so. I look forward to your thoughts.
Thanks,
Emily
From:
Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 8 August 2018 at 21:04
To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>
Cc: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no>, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com>, "martin@brandregistrygroup.org"
<martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Emily,
As there was also a request on the call to take a hard look the “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” paragraph, should we send a reminder of this topic to members to get quick input? I think CW wanted it completely struck and others called for tweaks or more positive phrasing.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511
twitter: @javrua
skype: javier.rua1
On Aug 8, 2018, at 2:32 PM, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Work Track members,
On the call today, there was a request to provide additional information about how the attached proposed draft recommendations would translate into changes to the 2012 Applicant Guidebook text.
Please find this information below. Text in blue italics are notes from staff.
2.2.1.3.2 String Requirements
Part III - Policy Requirements for Generic Top-Level Domains – These requirements apply to all prospective top- level domain strings applied for as gTLDs.
3.1 Applied-for gTLD strings in ASCII must be composed of three or more visually distinct characters. Two- character ASCII strings are not permitted, to avoid conflicting with current and future country codes based on the ISO 3166-1 standard.
[No changes were suggested to this text. Note that AGB section 2.2.1.3.2 Part III 3.1 addresses all two-character ASCII strings, but the draft recommendation only addresses a sub-set of the strings included in this section, namely two-character letter-letter ASCII combinations.]
2.2.1.4.1 Treatment of Country or Territory Names
Applications for strings that are country or territory names will not be approved, as they are not available under the New gTLD Program in this application round. A string shall be considered to be a country or territory name if:
- it is an alpha-3 code listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard.
- it is a long-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the long-form name in
any languageofficial languages of the country and the official UN languages.- it is a short-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the short-form name in
any languageofficial languages of the country and the official UN languages.- it is the short- or long-form name association with a code that has been designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency.
- it is a separable component of a country name designated on the “Separable Country Names List,” or is a translation of a name appearing on the list, in
any languageofficial languages of the country and the official UN languages. See the Annex at the end of this module.- it is a 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.” [Note: No changes were suggested to this text, but the draft recommendation points out that the existing language is confusing and should be revised to more clearly reflect the original intent of provision.]
- vii. it is a 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.
Kind regards,
Emily
From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, 8 August 2018 at 13:09
To: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <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.
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-gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org].
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.
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5