I do not understand the antigovernment sentiments of some peopleIt is a little standing issue.We need to work together in a fair basisThere are no unfounded and baseless reservationWhatever could be categorisedas unfounded or baseless are to ignorethe very right of the people of countries.This has nothing to do with governmentsThere is no legitimacy on these claimsThey are considered as invasion of country babes whetherTwo letter or three lettersRegardsSent from my iPhoneAlfredo, we have been excluding many actors under the baseless and ideological "reserved names". I am not in favor of exclusionary actors here. I am in search of inclusiveness. Whoever can come up with the most inclusive idea, I am up for it, when it comes to generic/geo names that correspond to brands and generic names. Would that be the governments? I doubt it. They are going to apply their local "exclusionary" laws on generic names. Would that be the trademark owners, I doubt it. They want to protect their brands. If a brand name resonates with a generic or geo name, they should allow those names to register. same as the governments. What has been happening until now, has been exclusionary and political. why can't .Persiangulf exist and someone be able to register ihate.persiangulf? why can't .persiangulf registry be in operation and some entity also come up with the application of .arabiangulf? It's sad. but we are here at ICANN and WT5 to exclude domain name registrants and registry ideas, and I am the last person to be in favor of it.FarzanehOn Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 3:40 PM Alfredo Calderon <calderon.alfredo@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Farzaneh, I appreciate your comment. You seem to exclude two sectors that could manage requests. Whom do you propose should have the responsibility?
Alfredo Calderon
eLearning Consultantcalderon.alfredo@gmail.com |http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com | Skype: Alfredo_1212| wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon
I don't agree at all. This can lead to government overreach in generic names. I don't know why the government enthusiasts feel it's appropriate that cctld operators that are private in nature to be granted such powers either.--On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 3:14 PM Alfredo Calderon <calderon.alfredo@gmail.com> wrote:I have been following the recent discussion of 3 letter TLD’s by Carlos Raul and the rest of the group members.Carlos Raul’s wording“ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public interest/public benefit entities.”
makes sense. We ICANN org would be delegating the responsibility to governments to ensure the validity of the requests. Therefore I support Carlos Raul’s suggestion._______________________________________________Alfredo CalderonEmail: calderon.alfredo@gmail.comTwitter: acalderon52LinkedIn: pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52Skype: alfredo_1212Business Card: http://myonepage.com/acalderonDear Annebeth,
As you have heard me (too) many times before, I admire the track record of preceding, clearly focused public interest 3 letter geo-TLDs, like the ones from Catalonia in Spain, Brittany's in France, and Serbia's 3 letter TLDs
Now that I re-stated my rationale for such a clear-cut public interest case in an email to Rosalia (for geo use ONLY, accessible -i.e. cheap- and non-profit), I hereby submit to the WT my final revised language suggestion, which is ONLY applicable for 3-Letter codes. It would substitute the following final paragraph in the relevant section which deals with 3 Letter codes: “The SubPro may want to consider recommending whether any future application/revision/delegation process to be established (either generic or restricted to the Geographic categories only), should determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant public international, national or sub-national public authorities, may apply for country and territory names"
My suggestion for a FORWARD looking option is:
“ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public interest/public benefit entities.”
This paragraph is, in my view, a sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation that could go ahead with broader WT consensus. And if it does not, please make sure it is recorded as an objection against a permanent restriction of the delegation of ISO 3letter list.Thanks to all,
---
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez+506 8837 7176Aparatado 1571-1000COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió:
Hi CarlosCould 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 LangeSpecial Adviser International PolicyUNINETT Norid ASPhone: +47 959 11 559Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.noMy 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
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-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<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-wt5Farzaneh_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
email signature