Thank you for your email.

From the beginning of the WT5 work we have highlighted the fact that 2007 policy does not fully align with the 2012 AGB. Any policy development work must recognise this perspective in any recommendations put forward under Subsequent Procedures PDP. Nevertheless, our discussions have mostly taken the AGB 2012 Procedures as the starting point for our deliberations, using any experiences and examples to guide us through our work. Nevertheless, we still need to reference the existing GNSO policies when we are making any recommendations for changes and you will note that the draft recommendations tie-in the treatment of the AGB.

We also have the deliberations recorded and compiled so that these resources can be referenced in any conclusions, rather than just simply quoting the recommendations. 

I hope this helps clarify.

Kind regards,

Martin

Hello Martin,

After a first Reading I have a systemic problem with the language added to the recommendations. May be a style issue because I´m not an English as a 1st language speaker, or it may be a lack of understanding from my side of the scope of this WT.

In any case, for each of the sections that use this language I have the same comment.

1. In case of <quote>  This recommendation is a revision to the existing 2007 policy recommendations. <unquote> my comment is that we need clarity if the existing 2007 policy (GAC? GNSO? other?) recommendations are explicitly within scope of the SubPro PDP

2. In case of <quote> The ICANN community may want to consider whether a future process should be established to determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names. <unquote> my disagreement is much larger, as I was assuming it was to this WT5 to make a specific recommendation in that sense and stop the ping pong that we have been playing since 2012 when th ccNSO WG, and then the joint ccNSO and GNSO CWG have been avoiding to propose a solution to the issue. What exact mechanism is the WT5 proposing here?

Maybe some redrafting may solve my doubts, maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture. But I have serious considerations about the use of this specific wording/style in what would be clear cut recommendations. I'm afraid they don't go beyond the lack of consensus instead of helping to measure any consensus, because of their restrictive nature and lack of a clear path forward.

I just don't agree that the sole recommendation of WT5 that is going to be measure is a negative one: to restrict delegation of most geographic names. In my view recommendations should be framed in a positive manner, if possible.

Please find attached my comments on the v2 for the record, so I don't spoil the call

Best regards

---

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez

carlosraul@gutierrez.se

+506 8837 7176

Aparatado 1571-1000

COSTA RICA

El 2018-08-06 06:42, Martin Sutton escribió:

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.

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

<Recommendations - country and territory names - 6 August 2018 v2.pdf>

<Recommendations - country and territory names - 6 August 2018 v2.docx>

<Work Track 5 - Path to Initial Report 6 August 2018.pdf>

<Recommendations - country and territory names - 6 August 2018 Comments CRGutierrez.pdf>