Thank you very much Carlos. This is noted. Best, Julie From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Date: Sunday, October 21, 2018 at 9:21 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 20 October 2018 (ICANN63) Thank you very much Julie! For the record I want to restate in written form my specific request made yesterday during the session after Jorge Cancio's proposals before the coffee, as follows In order to correctly dimension the scope of the issue at hand and to evaluate the <quote> (b) relevant rules contained in the 2012 Guidebook, such as the Geographic Names Review procedure, Geographic Names Extended Evaluation, and Objection Procedures; <unquote> I think it necessary to add the facts and results from the last round, in particular give readers the exact number on how many applications came in with the principal objective to use as a geographic TLD and where delegated or not (and for what reasons not delegated), as opposed to applications with a clearly defined geographic name applied for a different purpose than using it for geographic purposes and where finally delegated or not (and for what reasons not delegated). In my view, any applicant that decided to pull back application after a GAC early warning and got reimbursed, should also be considered as a successful result in terms of the AGBs effectiveness. This factual framework is not only missing in the draft but is my view necessary, no only to give the proper background to readers and decisions makers outside of the direct participants in the working group, but also as basis and reality check for the rationale for possible future recommendations coming out of this WT5. I can’ avoid to notice in the present draft a tendency to use this WT5 as a backdoor to revision history, putting the results of the last round (and or the AGB) in a negative light of conflict and unpredictability. It is my personal interpretation based on the CCT Review that the last round, a well as geoTLD delegations previous to the last round, even for 3-letter codes like .asia, .lat, .cat, .bzh and .срб should be considered as successful delegation of geoTLDs in terms of enhancing competition, consumer choice and consumer trust, which in my view are the primary objectives of the expansion of the DNS space. If participants want to focus on the few exceptional cases that did not end in a satisfactory delegation, they should be discussed in the proper context of the overall numbers and any specific recommendations should focus in the causes for the real issues, instead of an overall change in the policies and AGB that delivered a majority of positive results. Thank you for properly recording my comment with the session documents. --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-10-20 14:43, Julie Hedlund escribió: Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see attached the action items and notes from the Work Track 5 meeting sessions 1-3 today (20 October) at ICANN63. These high-level notes are designed to help WT5 members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-10-20+ICANN63+Barcelona+-+New.... Please also find attached the slides. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5