Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Additional Input Requested - "The ICANN community may want to consider. . ."
Dear all I don’t really understand the sentence Carlos proposed. What kind of names does this refer to? Kindly Annebeth From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> Date: Thursday, 9 August 2018 at 16:07 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Additional Input Requested - "The ICANN community may want to consider. . ." Dear Work Track members, On yesterday’s call, there were a number of comments about the following suggested text in draft recommendations 2-8: “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.” The purpose of this text was to acknowledge that some WT members expressed that there should be a way for country and territory names to be delegated, while also keeping in mind that others felt that this issue is not within the remit of Work Track 5 or the GNSO. Some support was expressed for deleting this sentence. One alternative to this sentence was proposed, by Carlos: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” The Work Track leadership team would like to hear from the group if there are objections to deleting the text or if there are other edits that the group would like to suggest. Please reply on this thread. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
I second Annebeth, There must be a misunderstanding regarding Carlos’ short version: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” This was the original: “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” The “short version” doesn’t make sense that way. Carlos: could you explain? You seem to reference to Alpha-2 codes that will not become country codes? If an authority is relevant, then the 2 letter code is assigned to them already, no? Or is it the not that has to disappear? Then it would make somehow sense. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange Sent: Donnerstag, 9. August 2018 17:39 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Additional Input Requested - "The ICANN community may want to consider. . ." Dear all I don’t really understand the sentence Carlos proposed. What kind of names does this refer to? Kindly Annebeth From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> > Date: Thursday, 9 August 2018 at 16:07 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Additional Input Requested - "The ICANN community may want to consider. . ." Dear Work Track members, On yesterday’s call, there were a number of comments about the following suggested text in draft recommendations 2-8: “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.” The purpose of this text was to acknowledge that some WT members expressed that there should be a way for country and territory names to be delegated, while also keeping in mind that others felt that this issue is not within the remit of Work Track 5 or the GNSO. Some support was expressed for deleting this sentence. One alternative to this sentence was proposed, by Carlos: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” The Work Track leadership team would like to hear from the group if there are objections to deleting the text or if there are other edits that the group would like to suggest. Please reply on this thread. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
Dear All, I second Annebeth as well. If I remember correctly our discussion a few month ago, there was no opposition against this sentence “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.” as it provides a path for applicants to apply for currently not-available country and territory names given that ICANN initiates a process for release. Why should e.g. the German Government not be able to apply for .deutschland in the future? The new proposal by Carlos refers not to not-available names, but to (new) “strings that are not current or future countries or territories“. As far as I remember we have not yet talked how to handle strings for newly founded country or territories - is this in the remit of WT5 at all? So I support to keep the initial text. Kind regards Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Alexander Schubert Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. August 2018 17:13 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Additional Input Requested - "The ICANN community may want to consider. . ." I second Annebeth, There must be a misunderstanding regarding Carlos’ short version: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” This was the original: “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” The “short version” doesn’t make sense that way. Carlos: could you explain? You seem to reference to Alpha-2 codes that will not become country codes? If an authority is relevant, then the 2 letter code is assigned to them already, no? Or is it the not that has to disappear? Then it would make somehow sense. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange Sent: Donnerstag, 9. August 2018 17:39 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Additional Input Requested - "The ICANN community may want to consider. . ." Dear all I don’t really understand the sentence Carlos proposed. What kind of names does this refer to? Kindly Annebeth From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, 9 August 2018 at 16:07 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Additional Input Requested - "The ICANN community may want to consider. . ." Dear Work Track members, On yesterday’s call, there were a number of comments about the following suggested text in draft recommendations 2-8: “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.” The purpose of this text was to acknowledge that some WT members expressed that there should be a way for country and territory names to be delegated, while also keeping in mind that others felt that this issue is not within the remit of Work Track 5 or the GNSO. Some support was expressed for deleting this sentence. One alternative to this sentence was proposed, by Carlos: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” The Work Track leadership team would like to hear from the group if there are objections to deleting the text or if there are other edits that the group would like to suggest. Please reply on this thread. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
+1 This refers to non GNSO policy and falls outside of WT5 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH Sent: 09 August 2018 16:44 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Additional Input Requested - "The ICANN community may want to consider. . ." Dear All, I second Annebeth as well. If I remember correctly our discussion a few month ago, there was no opposition against this sentence “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.” as it provides a path for applicants to apply for currently not-available country and territory names given that ICANN initiates a process for release. Why should e.g. the German Government not be able to apply for .deutschland in the future? The new proposal by Carlos refers not to not-available names, but to (new) “strings that are not current or future countries or territories“. As far as I remember we have not yet talked how to handle strings for newly founded country or territories - is this in the remit of WT5 at all? So I support to keep the initial text. Kind regards Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von Alexander Schubert Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. August 2018 17:13 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Additional Input Requested - "The ICANN community may want to consider. . ." I second Annebeth, There must be a misunderstanding regarding Carlos’ short version: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” This was the original: “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” The “short version” doesn’t make sense that way. Carlos: could you explain? You seem to reference to Alpha-2 codes that will not become country codes? If an authority is relevant, then the 2 letter code is assigned to them already, no? Or is it the not that has to disappear? Then it would make somehow sense. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange Sent: Donnerstag, 9. August 2018 17:39 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Additional Input Requested - "The ICANN community may want to consider. . ." Dear all I don’t really understand the sentence Carlos proposed. What kind of names does this refer to? Kindly Annebeth From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, 9 August 2018 at 16:07 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Additional Input Requested - "The ICANN community may want to consider. . ." Dear Work Track members, On yesterday’s call, there were a number of comments about the following suggested text in draft recommendations 2-8: “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.” The purpose of this text was to acknowledge that some WT members expressed that there should be a way for country and territory names to be delegated, while also keeping in mind that others felt that this issue is not within the remit of Work Track 5 or the GNSO. Some support was expressed for deleting this sentence. One alternative to this sentence was proposed, by Carlos: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” The Work Track leadership team would like to hear from the group if there are objections to deleting the text or if there are other edits that the group would like to suggest. Please reply on this thread. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
Dear All, +1 Annebeth. The original sentence agrees with what we agreed in ICANN San Juan and following discussions. Best, Rosalía [cid:B190111C-4AAD-456E-809F-8934B6CA8935] On Aug 9, 2018, at 9:44 AM, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.com>> wrote: Dear All, I second Annebeth as well. If I remember correctly our discussion a few month ago, there was no opposition against this sentence “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.” as it provides a path for applicants to apply for currently not-available country and territory names given that ICANN initiates a process for release. Why should e.g. the German Government not be able to apply for .deutschland in the future? The new proposal by Carlos refers not to not-available names, but to (new) “strings that are not current or future countries or territories“. As far as I remember we have not yet talked how to handle strings for newly founded country or territories - is this in the remit of WT5 at all? So I support to keep the initial text. Kind regards Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting/> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von Alexander Schubert Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. August 2018 17:13 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Additional Input Requested - "The ICANN community may want to consider. . ." I second Annebeth, There must be a misunderstanding regarding Carlos’ short version: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” This was the original: “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” The “short version” doesn’t make sense that way. Carlos: could you explain? You seem to reference to Alpha-2 codes that will not become country codes? If an authority is relevant, then the 2 letter code is assigned to them already, no? Or is it the not that has to disappear? Then it would make somehow sense. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange Sent: Donnerstag, 9. August 2018 17:39 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Additional Input Requested - "The ICANN community may want to consider. . ." Dear all I don’t really understand the sentence Carlos proposed. What kind of names does this refer to? Kindly Annebeth From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, 9 August 2018 at 16:07 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Additional Input Requested - "The ICANN community may want to consider. . ." Dear Work Track members, On yesterday’s call, there were a number of comments about the following suggested text in draft recommendations 2-8: “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.” The purpose of this text was to acknowledge that some WT members expressed that there should be a way for country and territory names to be delegated, while also keeping in mind that others felt that this issue is not within the remit of Work Track 5 or the GNSO. Some support was expressed for deleting this sentence. One alternative to this sentence was proposed, by Carlos: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” The Work Track leadership team would like to hear from the group if there are objections to deleting the text or if there are other edits that the group would like to suggest. Please reply on this thread. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 _______________________________________________ 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
participants (5)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Annebeth Lange -
Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH -
Nick Wenban-Smith -
Rosalía Morales