Dear Carlos, Thank you for re-sending this to WT5 members and your comments and suggestions. I am sure this will help other members to share their views on these topics. Kind regards, Martin Sent from my iPad On 1 Apr 2018, at 18:52, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> wrote: Hi Martin, Please confirm if you get my following comments Dear WT5 Participants: I trust that all of us have returned home OK from San Juan following ICANN 61 and enjoying a few happy easter days. For the record and with a view to the cancellation of the conference call on 28 March, 05.00 UTC, I write this note to recall some points made during the discussion on Wednesday morning, 14 March. For the Subsequent procedures PDP to go forward without delay, we need to make progress on a new geo.TLD policy for “full names” quickly. Based on previous efforts (like the previous policy efforts of the ccNSO, the ccNSO-GNSO-CWG that followed, and the efforts within the GAC) it is not advisable to pursue the idea that the 2012 Applicant Guide Book (AGB) reserved list of geo.names (based on codes dependent on outside reference lists) as a default. That text (AGB) failed to address several classes of names that are of significant interest to user communities, which gave rise to several disagreements and delays last time around (.amazon, .africa, .persiangulf). First , I want to point the the 2-letter code ISO 3166-1 list was used to DELEGATE ccTLDs (not to RESERVE from delegation). The first registered ccTLDs were .us<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.us>, .uk<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.uk>, and .il<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.il>, all registered in 1985. But It has taken until today to (not) make a decision on the 3 letter alpha codes, which have been used to restrict delegation of TLDs. In the meantime other geography related top level domains have been successfully delegated, like is the case for the city TLDs (.Berlin, .London, .Rio, etc.) as well as some cultural communities like .cat, .bzh and even new countries like .srb. Obviously, as more exception emerge to reference codes dependent on outside reference lists there is a growing space for conflict. There remains a tremendous and growing inconsistency in the case of the 3-letter codes on the ISO 3166-1 list, which served as basis for another ineffective reservation during the last round. For that reason I suggested during our meeting in ICANN61 that it is important for WT5 to eliminate the restrictions of the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list , so that an effective “full.geo.name<http://full.geo.name/>” evaluation policy, consistent with modern developments in the DNS space can be developed for subsequent rounds. With a few exceptions, short codes/acronyms of the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list are not “Generic” in the usual ICANN sense of the DNS expansion . For that reason I submit this modest draft PROPOSAL TO DELEGATE 3 letter codes to interested Governments and other geo related public interest entities prior to or during the next round. Taking the delegation of 2-letter codes to ccTLD managers as a precedent , we should assume that there is demand out there for differentiated use of 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list codes, either by Governments, public entities, communities or even some ccTLD managers themselves. So instead of the 3-letter codes of the ISO-3166-1 list remaining reserved, the WT5 should analyze the possibility of using subsequent rounds and the proven evaluation methodology and assigning process of the last round (as in the case for city names) for the ISO list 3 letter codes. This option to delegate/register the whole 3-letter code ISO list, opens the space for other public interest parties to apply for a few IGO/IGNO specific 3 letter codes that also have been reserved (for example, IOC, WHO, IMF) and would leave all other 3 letter permutation outside the ISO list and IGO/INGOs open for creative applications in the generic domain space. A back of the envelope calculation shows that offering to delegate the first group and taking into account the existing 3 letter codes will amount to a total of less than 500 TLDs. That leaves more than 20’000 possible permutation open for evaluation as new gTLDs. WT5 should seriously consider a delegation process for the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list (as opposed to maintaining an incongruent reservation list) under the following assignment conditions of Right of First Refusal 1. Pertinent country or territory Authority or Government (as per previously delegated ISO 2 Letter list) that a has used the 3 letter classification for other public interest purposes (passports); 2. Then as per analogy to the delegation of City names in the previous round, subject to approval by the respective legal entity managing the region, any of the following: * Linguistic, ethnic, cultural, indigenous minorities or peoples in pertinent country or territory, substate peoples or national minorities, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. Other users of 3-letter codes for not-for profit motives, like for example the local Olympic Authority or Committee of pertinent country or territory * Local ccTLD authority or manager of pertinent country or territory as long as it is based on a not-for-profit structure * etc. 3. IGO-INGOs from the reserved names list that may or may not overlap with the ISO list If none of the above applies for delegation, or if all of the above are found to have refused to apply, then the 3 Letter code in question AND ANY ADDITIONAL 3 letter permutation so far not reserved, shall be treated as an gTLD under section.....open to any applicant.... I hope this extended comment will be added to the record of the session in ICANN61 --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez El 2018-04-01 04:23, Martin Sutton escribió: Dear all, My apologies for the delay in sending the attached message to the group, I used the incorrect email address for WT5 when I previously sent this. Kind regards, Martin Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: BRG <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: 29 March 2018 at 17:37:08 BST To: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: WT5 Update and Next Meeting Dear WT5 colleagues, Post- ICANN61 WT5 update WT5 held a public session at ICANN61, providing a brief background and summary of progress, presenting the timeline the group is working towards to deliver an Initial Report in July (see further information below for timeline). Slides, transcript and video stream can be accessed via the ICANN61 Meeting Schedule page - https://61.schedule.icann.org/meetings/647704[61.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__61.schedule.icann.org_meetings_647704&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=9hZtlLcQOELtRr-rWR8_KmkrK6psv6S3UZ2tgOQzfBw&s=L31rLnhbLZ_rIlEidFFNn-3lW-x4VT_SPJ1hUOSAc84&e=> (transcript is also attached). The main part of the session focused on future treatment of geographic terms contained within the 2012 Applicant Guidebook (AGB). By way of summary, the general direction of discussions and comments were: 2-character country codes (ISO 3166) Support for maintaining the status quo, reserving all 2 letter-letter ASCII combinations for existing and future country codes. 3-character country codes (ISO 3166) Support for maintaining the status quo, i.e. not available, and may be appropriate to defer broader questions about which entity/entities can apply for these strings and how they may be treated (for instance, as a gTLD, a ccTLD or something else). Long and short form of country and territory names (ISO 3166) Support for maintaining the status quo, i.e. not available, and may be appropriate to defer broader questions about which entity/entities can apply for these strings and how they may be treated (for instance, as a gTLD, a ccTLD or something else). The spreadsheet has been updated to reflect the comments and discussion points and is available here - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FuPEq0y-cdSUQ1nvhWKhVnG8PLaC2RYXsCpQu91FDqo/edit#gid=358523414[docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1FuPEq0y-2DcdSUQ1nvhWKhVnG8PLaC2RYXsCpQu91FDqo_edit-23gid-3D358523414&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=9hZtlLcQOELtRr-rWR8_KmkrK6psv6S3UZ2tgOQzfBw&s=ex9SC1DN3VrBGttw9uOUWJnP9-xPcUf5sxc8LfP_nLE&e=>. Some practical issues were raised in respect of using the working document. This is currently a spreadsheet within Googledocs, with some members unable to access or edit the document. It can also be difficult to track changes. We would be happy to hear suggestions to make this working document easier to use (for instance, transfer the content to a word document within Googledocs, to allow for easier editing and tracking), please provide your preferences and we will consider a more efficient method to use a shared document. WT5 Timeline A copy of the timeline leading to the publication of the Initial Report is below. This will lag the PDP WG Initial Report, as previously discussed with WT5. Some concerns were raised during the ICANN61 session regarding the challenges of working to the timeline. The co-leaders reminded the group that WT5 is focused on a single issue, whereas WT1-4 have had multiple topics to cover. In addition, there has already been multiple efforts within the ICANN community to explore the issue of geographic terms, including the Cross Community Working Group that concluded in 2017, from which we can draw from to support the deliberations within WT5. The WT5 co-leaders accept that the timeline may be challenging but it is also realistic based on the reasons that were re-stated during the ICANN61 session. <image001.png> Next Meeting - 4th April, 14:00 UTC Our next meeting will focus on working through all the remaining 2012 AGB terms to consider their future treatment. As a reminder, WT5 needs to consider the gap between policy and what was actually implemented in the AGB, so even if WT5 concludes that the AGB treatment of the geographic terms should be retained, our recommendations need to state this to ensure that there is consistency between future policy and implementation. We can then focus our attention on other terms not included in the AGB. Please note the changes to the remote access which were circulated earlier. Adobe Connect is not currently available and Webex will be used instead. Initial Report The content of the Initial Report is being developed as we progress our work, summarising our discussions and highlighting a sense of where the group is heading towards potential recommendations or where there are different options we would like the community to consider and provide input. We look forward to you joining our next call on 4th April and continuing our work. Kind regards, WT5 Co-Leads Annebeth Lange Olga Cavalli Javier Rua Martin Sutton _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
