Guys, I have watched the varied discussions ongoing. I am just taking an overall view. May i recommend some suggestions as well. First we agree that the 3 letter word of ISO distinguishing countries is already a good start and the two letter words are sitting with the ccTLD and three letter word is sitting with gTLD. This one solves the first discussion beyond doubts here. And this is an agreed principle i hope. Second is criteria on the geonames for full city or country names. I do understand that the discussion is revolving between brands groups and geographical naming. It would be a good process to practise the issue like in France. In france for example the .FR needs clearance to be used as a ccTLD, be it business etc but the paperwork needs to be there. So having a clearance from the government to use .FR as a company etc., is not a bad practice since it limits and ensures the good use of the .FR. We could adopt a process close to that. Third, we are having an issue which is branding, groups and the real process which is called GEONAMES. May be it would be interesting to get views from a specialist within ISO, UN and also perhaps WPO on the matter. It may be interesting to get some proper views of how they manage brands and different approaches. We need to be cognizant that we need to ensure a total capability for everyone. I am sure we can get an outside perspective of those together. Can i suggest the leaders of the team write to the different organisations asking a view of how they organise and what can also be of solution. I am not saying we are doing a bad work but generally i seem to believe we will be running around in circles. Just a suggestion. I as each and everyone wants to see things moving forward. We also need to understand that our suggestions and recommendations can ensure ICANN makes money to survive. We also need to ensure balance. As much as we always fight for status quo most of the time we need to evolve the idea. So my suggestion is above to get some real outside views from the organisations/institutions. We need to show that the work can be done else we will end up with another committee and end up with another EPDP perhaps a replacement to WHOIS/RDS —— My two cents.

On Aug 8, 2018, at 22:32, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote:

Dear Work Track members,

On the call today, there was a request to provide additional information about how the attached proposed draft recommendations would translate into changes to the 2012 Applicant Guidebook text.

Please find this information below. Text in blue italics are notes from staff.

2.2.1.3.2 String Requirements Part III - Policy Requirements for Generic Top-Level Domains – These requirements apply to all prospective top- level domain strings applied for as gTLDs.

3.1 Applied-for gTLD strings in ASCII must be composed of three or more visually distinct characters. Two- character ASCII strings are not permitted, to avoid conflicting with current and future country codes based on the ISO 3166-1 standard.

[No changes were suggested to this text. Note that AGB section 2.2.1.3.2 Part III 3.1 addresses all two-character ASCII strings, but the draft recommendation only addresses a sub-set of the strings included in this section, namely two-character letter-letter ASCII combinations.]

2.2.1.4.1 Treatment of Country or Territory Names

Applications for strings that are country or territory names will not be approved, as they are not available under the New gTLD Program in this application round. A string shall be considered to be a country or territory name if:

it is an alpha-3 code listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. it is a long-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the long-form name in any languageofficial languages of the country and the official UN languages. it is a short-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the short-form name in any languageofficial languages of the country and the official UN languages. it is the short- or long-form name association with a code that has been designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency. it is a separable component of a country name designated on the “Separable Country Names List,” or is a translation of a name appearing on the list, in any language official languages of the country and the official UN languages. See the Annex at the end of this module. it is a permutation or transposition of any of the names included in items (i) through (v). Permutations include removal of spaces, insertion of punctuation, and addition or removal of grammatical articles like “the.” A transposition is considered a change in the sequence of the long or short–form name, for example, “RepublicCzech” or “IslandsCayman.” [Note: No changes were suggested to this text, but the draft recommendation points out that the existing language is confusing and should be revised to more clearly reflect the original intent of provision.] vii. it is a name by which a country is commonly known, as demonstrated by evidence that the country is recognized by that name by an intergovernmental or treaty organization. Kind regards, Emily

From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 8 August 2018 at 13:09 To: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, "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: Re: [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 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 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 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] 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-gn... [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...>.

If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto: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.

<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx><Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>

Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"

Hi Carlos Could 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 Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>: My 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 --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA 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<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 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] 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-gn... [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...>. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Hi Carlos Thanks for this. I misunderstood you about #1, since you mentioned that .xx for example probably would not be a country code. However, it is easier to use the rationale that it is UN that decides what is and what is not a country, and if they decide a 2-letter code for them, it would be good if it is free. And another issue for me is that I think we should keep the distinction between ccTLDs and gTLDs with 2-letters and 3-letters or more. That means that we have 2 issues with opening up for ISO 3-letter codes; 1. It will be a gTLD – and the discussion – especially in the F2F in San Juan - has shown that many don’t want that. They want it to be a ccTLD. And that is impossible since what we are working with is the gTLD process. Hence the last sentence to defer this to discuss whether we can find ways to do this later – perhaps a new category? 2. If we open it up – as gTLDs – how do you figure we can restrict it so that it will be Govs, ccTLDs or Public Interest entities only that can apply? Best regards, Annebeth From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Date: Thursday, 9 August 2018 at 02:50 To: "Annebeth B. Lange" <annebeth.lange@norid.no> Cc: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear Annebeth I fully support Recommendation #1 AS IS no changes there I don't support the recommendation on ISO 3 letter (forgot the number). ISO 3 letter codes should be delegated to Govs, ccTLD managers or any other interested PUBLIC INTEREST entities Don't know if this answers your question --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió: Hi Carlos Could 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 Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>: My 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 --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA 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<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 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] 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-gn... [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...>. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Dear All, We discussed the issue on 3 letter codes for months and had come to a consensus in our face to face meeting in San Juan. I strongly believe we should stick to our previous agreements and move on. Best, Rosalía [cid:B190111C-4AAD-456E-809F-8934B6CA8935] On Aug 9, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com<mailto:javrua@gmail.com>> wrote: Carlos, I see you support keeping the current status of two letter-letter country/territory codes. I think that’s in line with general WT thinking and I feel has broad support. On the other hand, like some other WT members you mention preference for a future policy that’s a bit more liberal or “pro delegation” in regards 3 letter codes that are geonames, limiting the possible applicants to -governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and “public interest entities”. Could you expand on these “public interest entities”? Could you suggest language in the pertinent “Recommendation” for WT consideration? Thx Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua On Aug 8, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> wrote: Dear Annebeth I fully support Recommendation #1 AS IS no changes there I don't support the recommendation on ISO 3 letter (forgot the number). ISO 3 letter codes should be delegated to Govs, ccTLD managers or any other interested PUBLIC INTEREST entities Don't know if this answers your question --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió: Hi Carlos Could 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 Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>: My 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 --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA 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<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 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] 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-gn... [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...>. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Carlos, I’m not questioning your position. Everyone has their own right to their opinions. My opinion is that we should try to move on. Best, Rosalía Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 3:57:27 PM To: Rosalía Morales; Javier Rua Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Rosalía I submitted my position on 3 letter codes delegation in written form well before San Juan. My position goes back to the CWG on the same issue years ago, also on record. I can always live with a minority position here. On August 10, 2018 10:27:56 AM CST, "Rosalía Morales" <rosalia.morales@nic.cr> wrote: Dear All, We discussed the issue on 3 letter codes for months and had come to a consensus in our face to face meeting in San Juan. I strongly believe we should stick to our previous agreements and move on. Best, Rosalía [cid:B190111C-4AAD-456E-809F-8934B6CA8935] On Aug 9, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com<mailto:javrua@gmail.com>> wrote: Carlos, I see you support keeping the current status of two letter-letter country/territory codes. I think that’s in line with general WT thinking and I feel has broad support. On the other hand, like some other WT members you mention preference for a future policy that’s a bit more liberal or “pro delegation” in regards 3 letter codes that are geonames, limiting the possible applicants to -governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and “public interest entities”. Could you expand on these “public interest entities”? Could you suggest language in the pertinent “Recommendation” for WT consideration? Thx Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua On Aug 8, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> wrote: Dear Annebeth I fully support Recommendation #1 AS IS no changes there I don't support the recommendation on ISO 3 letter (forgot the number). ISO 3 letter codes should be delegated to Govs, ccTLD managers or any other interested PUBLIC INTEREST entities Don't know if this answers your question --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió: Hi Carlos Could 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 Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>: My 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 --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA 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<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 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] 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-gn... [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...>. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Greg, We had reached consensus as all notes and discussions indicate. We can definitely discuss it again, I personally believe we will reach the same result. Best, Rosalía Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 5:08:17 PM To: Rosalía Morales Cc: Carlos Raul Gutierrez; Javier Rua; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. The reason that we are doing a consensus call now is that we have not formally reached consensus yet on any recommendation. All we had before was the temperature of the room, at best. Now is the time to test whether we have consensus — not to say that the there was a consensus already and it’s too late to say anything but yes. That would not be a good test of consensus nor would it be a freely-reached agreement on consensus. Let’s keep in mind that the Co-Chairs are the only ones empowered to declare whether or not we have consensus and what that level of consensus. Let’s also keep in mind that any consensus level below full consensus implies some level of disagreement. As such, we can have “consensus” even while one or a few people disagree. The issue is whether we have strong agreement on consensus (at some level). In order to accurately assess the level of consensus, the Co-Chairs will need to see both the level of support and the level of disagreement. For these reasons , it’s actually quite important to let the “dissenters” speak out. And, yes, every once in a while, the dissent becomes the consensus. More often the dissent influences the consensus and strengthens it. So let’s let the consensus process work. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 6:17 PM Rosalía Morales <rosalia.morales@nic.cr<mailto:rosalia.morales@nic.cr>> wrote: Carlos, I’m not questioning your position. Everyone has their own right to their opinions. My opinion is that we should try to move on. Best, Rosalía Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 3:57:27 PM To: Rosalía Morales; Javier Rua Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Rosalía I submitted my position on 3 letter codes delegation in written form well before San Juan. My position goes back to the CWG on the same issue years ago, also on record. I can always live with a minority position here. On August 10, 2018 10:27:56 AM CST, "Rosalía Morales" <rosalia.morales@nic.cr<mailto:rosalia.morales@nic.cr>> wrote: Dear All, We discussed the issue on 3 letter codes for months and had come to a consensus in our face to face meeting in San Juan. I strongly believe we should stick to our previous agreements and move on. Best, Rosalía [X] On Aug 9, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com<mailto:javrua@gmail.com>> wrote: Carlos, I see you support keeping the current status of two letter-letter country/territory codes. I think that’s in line with general WT thinking and I feel has broad support. On the other hand, like some other WT members you mention preference for a future policy that’s a bit more liberal or “pro delegation” in regards 3 letter codes that are geonames, limiting the possible applicants to -governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and “public interest entities”. Could you expand on these “public interest entities”? Could you suggest language in the pertinent “Recommendation” for WT consideration? Thx Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua On Aug 8, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> wrote: Dear Annebeth I fully support Recommendation #1 AS IS no changes there I don't support the recommendation on ISO 3 letter (forgot the number). ISO 3 letter codes should be delegated to Govs, ccTLD managers or any other interested PUBLIC INTEREST entities Don't know if this answers your question --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió: Hi Carlos Could 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 Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>: My 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 --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA 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<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 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] 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-gn... [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...>. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ 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

All I would request we defer to the book to decide if consensus has been reached - this link will be helpful to understand the process for consensus https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/consensus-levels-proposal-16sep1... My reading is Greg might be right when he argues that the debate remains open until the Co-chairs issue a ruling. Challenging their decision needs escalation to the Chartering Organisation ie GNSO. Best

On Aug 11, 2018, at 12:04 AM, Alberto Soto <alberto@soto.net.ar> wrote:

I joined the WG a few days ago. I read a lot before doing it, but I find it difficult to see all the documentation and previous meetings. I imagine that it is already defined when consensus is reached, like other WG. And I would like to know if we already have points with achieved consensus. I understand that there may be new ideas, but that form of rework, often delays the team enough, and hinders compliance with any deadline. Therefore, if we have points with consensus, and even more if it was total, we should not treat them again. Someone like me, incorporated at the last minute, could break the work done.

Regards

Alberto

De: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> En nombre de Rosalía Morales Enviado el: viernes, 10 de agosto de 2018 11:36 p.m. Para: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> CC: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Greg, We had reached consensus as all notes and discussions indicate. We can definitely discuss it again, I personally believe we will reach the same result. Best, Rosalía

Get Outlook for iOS From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 5:08:17 PM To: Rosalía Morales Cc: Carlos Raul Gutierrez; Javier Rua; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

The reason that we are doing a consensus call now is that we have not formally reached consensus yet on any recommendation. All we had before was the temperature of the room, at best. Now is the time to test whether we have consensus — not to say that the there was a consensus already and it’s too late to say anything but yes. That would not be a good test of consensus nor would it be a freely-reached agreement on consensus.

Let’s keep in mind that the Co-Chairs are the only ones empowered to declare whether or not we have consensus and what that level of consensus. Let’s also keep in mind that any consensus level below full consensus implies some level of disagreement. As such, we can have “consensus” even while one or a few people disagree. The issue is whether we have strong agreement on consensus (at some level). In order to accurately assess the level of consensus, the Co-Chairs will need to see both the level of support and the level of disagreement. For these reasons , it’s actually quite important to let the “dissenters” speak out. And, yes, every once in a while, the dissent becomes the consensus. More often the dissent influences the consensus and strengthens it. So let’s let the consensus process work.

Best regards,

Greg

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 6:17 PM Rosalía Morales <rosalia.morales@nic.cr> wrote: Carlos, I’m not questioning your position. Everyone has their own right to their opinions. My opinion is that we should try to move on. Best, Rosalía

Get Outlook for iOS From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 3:57:27 PM To: Rosalía Morales; Javier Rua Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Rosalía

I submitted my position on 3 letter codes delegation in written form well before San Juan.

My position goes back to the CWG on the same issue years ago, also on record.

I can always live with a minority position here.

On August 10, 2018 10:27:56 AM CST, "Rosalía Morales" <rosalia.morales@nic.cr> wrote: Dear All,

We discussed the issue on 3 letter codes for months and had come to a consensus in our face to face meeting in San Juan. I strongly believe we should stick to our previous agreements and move on.

Best, Rosalía

On Aug 9, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:

Carlos,

I see you support keeping the current status of two letter-letter country/territory codes. I think that’s in line with general WT thinking and I feel has broad support.

On the other hand, like some other WT members you mention preference for a future policy that’s a bit more liberal or “pro delegation” in regards 3 letter codes that are geonames, limiting the possible applicants to -governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and “public interest entities”.

Could you expand on these “public interest entities”? Could you suggest language in the pertinent “Recommendation” for WT consideration?

Thx

Javier Rúa-Jovet

+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua

On Aug 8, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> wrote:

Dear Annebeth

I fully support Recommendation #1 AS IS

no changes there

I don't support the recommendation on ISO 3 letter (forgot the number). ISO 3 letter codes should be delegated to Govs, ccTLD managers or any other interested PUBLIC INTEREST entities

Don't know if this answers your question

--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA

El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió:

Hi Carlos

Could 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 Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no

8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se>: My 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

--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA

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-gn... [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-wt5

-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ 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

Thank you very much Annebeth and Aslam. Sure, for me it has been very enlightening. I will do so. My apologies Regards Alberto De: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no> Enviado el: sábado, 11 de agosto de 2018 08:13 a.m. Para: Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam@gmail.com> CC: Alberto Soto <alberto@soto.net.ar>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Hi all As I tried to explain in the meeting the 8th August, the GNSO consensus process is different from the process in the other SO/ACs. Those of us from CcNSO, GAC and ALAC are not familiar with the GNSO process. Since WT5 is part of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, we have to follow it. I think it will be useful for those not attending the meeting on the 8th to listen to the recording/read the transcript. We there went through the consensus process. It is important to understand that every individual is entitled to his or her opinion, but consensus is not about voting. I hope this helps. Kind regards Annebeth Annebeth B Lange UNINETT Norid AS 11. aug. 2018 kl. 06:16 skrev Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam@gmail.com <mailto:gmohamedaslam@gmail.com> >: All I would request we defer to the book to decide if consensus has been reached - this link will be helpful to understand the process for consensus https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/consensus-levels-proposal-16sep1... My reading is Greg might be right when he argues that the debate remains open until the Co-chairs issue a ruling. Challenging their decision needs escalation to the Chartering Organisation ie GNSO. Best On Aug 11, 2018, at 12:04 AM, Alberto Soto <alberto@soto.net.ar <mailto:alberto@soto.net.ar> > wrote: I joined the WG a few days ago. I read a lot before doing it, but I find it difficult to see all the documentation and previous meetings. I imagine that it is already defined when consensus is reached, like other WG. And I would like to know if we already have points with achieved consensus. I understand that there may be new ideas, but that form of rework, often delays the team enough, and hinders compliance with any deadline. Therefore, if we have points with consensus, and even more if it was total, we should not treat them again. Someone like me, incorporated at the last minute, could break the work done. Regards Alberto De: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > En nombre de Rosalía Morales Enviado el: viernes, 10 de agosto de 2018 11:36 p.m. Para: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > CC: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Greg, We had reached consensus as all notes and discussions indicate. We can definitely discuss it again, I personally believe we will reach the same result. Best, Rosalía Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> _____ From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 5:08:17 PM To: Rosalía Morales Cc: Carlos Raul Gutierrez; Javier Rua; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. The reason that we are doing a consensus call now is that we have not formally reached consensus yet on any recommendation. All we had before was the temperature of the room, at best. Now is the time to test whether we have consensus — not to say that the there was a consensus already and it’s too late to say anything but yes. That would not be a good test of consensus nor would it be a freely-reached agreement on consensus. Let’s keep in mind that the Co-Chairs are the only ones empowered to declare whether or not we have consensus and what that level of consensus. Let’s also keep in mind that any consensus level below full consensus implies some level of disagreement. As such, we can have “consensus” even while one or a few people disagree. The issue is whether we have strong agreement on consensus (at some level). In order to accurately assess the level of consensus, the Co-Chairs will need to see both the level of support and the level of disagreement. For these reasons , it’s actually quite important to let the “dissenters” speak out. And, yes, every once in a while, the dissent becomes the consensus. More often the dissent influences the consensus and strengthens it. So let’s let the consensus process work. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 6:17 PM Rosalía Morales <rosalia.morales@nic.cr <mailto:rosalia.morales@nic.cr> > wrote: Carlos, I’m not questioning your position. Everyone has their own right to their opinions. My opinion is that we should try to move on. Best, Rosalía Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> _____ From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 3:57:27 PM To: Rosalía Morales; Javier Rua Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Rosalía I submitted my position on 3 letter codes delegation in written form well before San Juan. My position goes back to the CWG on the same issue years ago, also on record. I can always live with a minority position here. On August 10, 2018 10:27:56 AM CST, "Rosalía Morales" <rosalia.morales@nic.cr <mailto:rosalia.morales@nic.cr> > wrote: Dear All, We discussed the issue on 3 letter codes for months and had come to a consensus in our face to face meeting in San Juan. I strongly believe we should stick to our previous agreements and move on. Best, Rosalía On Aug 9, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com <mailto:javrua@gmail.com> > wrote: Carlos, I see you support keeping the current status of two letter-letter country/territory codes. I think that’s in line with general WT thinking and I feel has broad support. On the other hand, like some other WT members you mention preference for a future policy that’s a bit more liberal or “pro delegation” in regards 3 letter codes that are geonames, limiting the possible applicants to -governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and “public interest entities”. Could you expand on these “public interest entities”? Could you suggest language in the pertinent “Recommendation” for WT consideration? Thx Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua On Aug 8, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> > wrote: Dear Annebeth I fully support Recommendation #1 AS IS no changes there I don't support the recommendation on ISO 3 letter (forgot the number). ISO 3 letter codes should be delegated to Govs, ccTLD managers or any other interested PUBLIC INTEREST entities Don't know if this answers your question --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió: Hi Carlos Could 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 Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> >: My 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 --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA 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 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > Date: Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 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] 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... [gnso.icann.org]. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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

Carlos, Just as I mentioned before, please respect other people’s opinions. In my view we will be unable to meet our timeline and discuss all the following categories if we keep going back and forth. I’m glad you made your point, but so will I. We both are in our right to disagree and let this list know about our opinions. Best, Rosalía Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2018 7:57:29 AM To: Rosalía Morales; Javier Rua Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Rosalía The ccNSO tried to move on and couldn't. The CWG ccNSO GNSO also got stuck exactly at this juncture (reservation of ISO 3l list). And now this WT5 draft is suggesting exactly the same. I'm sorry, but I see no reasonable rationale yet to move on other than lack of consensus. I want to leave for the record that in my view, the ISO 3L could be a dream of a list for purely public interest that could be "uniformerly", I.e. under a single set of PICs, used for non for profit, geographic only, expandable, cheap way for geonames. And I think it would be valuable to spend MORE time on the PICs and the delegation conditions for such a fine list. Have a nice weekend On August 10, 2018 4:17:30 PM CST, "Rosalía Morales" <rosalia.morales@nic.cr> wrote: Carlos, I’m not questioning your position. Everyone has their own right to their opinions. My opinion is that we should try to move on. Best, Rosalía Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 3:57:27 PM To: Rosalía Morales; Javier Rua Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Rosalía I submitted my position on 3 letter codes delegation in written form well before San Juan. My position goes back to the CWG on the same issue years ago, also on record. I can always live with a minority position here. On August 10, 2018 10:27:56 AM CST, "Rosalía Morales" <rosalia.morales@nic.cr> wrote: Dear All, We discussed the issue on 3 letter codes for months and had come to a consensus in our face to face meeting in San Juan. I strongly believe we should stick to our previous agreements and move on. Best, Rosalía [cid:B190111C-4AAD-456E-809F-8934B6CA8935] On Aug 9, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com<mailto:javrua@gmail.com>> wrote: Carlos, I see you support keeping the current status of two letter-letter country/territory codes. I think that’s in line with general WT thinking and I feel has broad support. On the other hand, like some other WT members you mention preference for a future policy that’s a bit more liberal or “pro delegation” in regards 3 letter codes that are geonames, limiting the possible applicants to -governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and “public interest entities”. Could you expand on these “public interest entities”? Could you suggest language in the pertinent “Recommendation” for WT consideration? Thx Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua On Aug 8, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> wrote: Dear Annebeth I fully support Recommendation #1 AS IS no changes there I don't support the recommendation on ISO 3 letter (forgot the number). ISO 3 letter codes should be delegated to Govs, ccTLD managers or any other interested PUBLIC INTEREST entities Don't know if this answers your question --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió: Hi Carlos Could 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 Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>: My 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 --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA 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<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 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] 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-gn... [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...>. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Carlos, I don’t think that this WT5 should create a new “silo” of “uniform TLDs” – in this case the 3166alpha3 based gTLDs. But ESPECIALLY this WT should have no mandate in the business plan – e.g. “cheap”. I assume you suggest these ISO 3166 3-letter based gTLDs should have a low price to the registrar? May I ask what the rationale for such thought is? Since almost 14 years (when Dirk and me started .berlin in November 2004) my mantra NUMBER ONE is: “No underpriced domain registrations”. These are the cause of all evil. ESPECIALLY for a new namespace. All “valuable” generic namespace within an underpriced gTLD WILL be grabbed by “investors” – and that’s the kiss of death to any new namespace. You will have your reasons to ask for an “inexpensive price to the registrar” (probably the thought was that low income people can have cheap domains) – others have reasons to demand higher (“responsible”) prices. Pricing shouldn’t be in the realm of ICANN. Otherwise: The “uniformly” idea voiced by you. Understandable to a degree. But completely impractical. Some countries will want to use it for the Government ONLY (like the U.S. Government does with .gov). Others will grant access to only certain parties. And some might open it up to the world. Again: That is not for ICANN to decide. So my question here: Seemingly we are NOT opening up ISO 3166 Alpha 3 and country names for the NEXT round, right? We merely make a note (like the last AGB did) that this category needs to be worked on? Why then would we already TODAY create pre-conditions? Let’s simply state that: We were tasked to solve this issue – but we delegate that work to some future policy making body as we do not feel that such decision were in our competence. Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Raul Gutierrez Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2018 4:57 PM To: Rosalía Morales <rosalia.morales@nic.cr>; Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Rosalía The ccNSO tried to move on and couldn't. The CWG ccNSO GNSO also got stuck exactly at this juncture (reservation of ISO 3l list). And now this WT5 draft is suggesting exactly the same. I'm sorry, but I see no reasonable rationale yet to move on other than lack of consensus. I want to leave for the record that in my view, the ISO 3L could be a dream of a list for purely public interest that could be "uniformerly", I.e. under a single set of PICs, used for non for profit, geographic only, expandable, cheap way for geonames. And I think it would be valuable to spend MORE time on the PICs and the delegation conditions for such a fine list. Have a nice weekend On August 10, 2018 4:17:30 PM CST, "Rosalía Morales" <rosalia.morales@nic.cr <mailto:rosalia.morales@nic.cr> > wrote: Carlos, I’m not questioning your position. Everyone has their own right to their opinions. My opinion is that we should try to move on. Best, Rosalía Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> _____ From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 3:57:27 PM To: Rosalía Morales; Javier Rua Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Rosalía I submitted my position on 3 letter codes delegation in written form well before San Juan. My position goes back to the CWG on the same issue years ago, also on record. I can always live with a minority position here. On August 10, 2018 10:27:56 AM CST, "Rosalía Morales" <rosalia.morales@nic.cr <mailto:rosalia.morales@nic.cr> > wrote: Dear All, We discussed the issue on 3 letter codes for months and had come to a consensus in our face to face meeting in San Juan. I strongly believe we should stick to our previous agreements and move on. Best, Rosalía On Aug 9, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com <mailto:javrua@gmail.com> > wrote: Carlos, I see you support keeping the current status of two letter-letter country/territory codes. I think that’s in line with general WT thinking and I feel has broad support. On the other hand, like some other WT members you mention preference for a future policy that’s a bit more liberal or “pro delegation” in regards 3 letter codes that are geonames, limiting the possible applicants to -governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and “public interest entities”. Could you expand on these “public interest entities”? Could you suggest language in the pertinent “Recommendation” for WT consideration? Thx Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua On Aug 8, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> > wrote: Dear Annebeth I fully support Recommendation #1 AS IS no changes there I don't support the recommendation on ISO 3 letter (forgot the number). ISO 3 letter codes should be delegated to Govs, ccTLD managers or any other interested PUBLIC INTEREST entities Don't know if this answers your question --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió: Hi Carlos Could 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 Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> >: My 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 --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA 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 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > Date: Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 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] 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... [gnso.icann.org]. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Thanks Jorge Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua

On Aug 13, 2018, at 8:43 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

Hello all

For those not attending the San Juan Meeting or not recalling it, it could be worthwhile that Secretariat could circulate a short summary of the rationale(s) that were put forward and discussed regarding 3-letter-country codes (and other country names).

We are now at consensus call stage, but this should not mean that everyone has to reiterate all arguments again, especially when there was a f2f meeting in San Juan and conclusions were drawn from it by the co-leads.

One thought in this discussion which is key to me (and which I mentioned in San Juan) is that 3-letter country codes are intuitively very closely linked to the country at stake, eg we use the three-letter code, inter alia, for our passports. Connected to this is the thought that such TLDs should be subject to applicable policies developed by the corresponding national communities, similarly to what happens with the 2-letter-country-codes, following in essence a principle of subsidiarity.

In San Juan the feeling was that this requires a new kind of policy-making forum within ICANN, as the GNSO deals with generic TLDs that are subject to a quite thorough global policy framework.

I feel these ideas are still valid and the many voices in support of them in San Juan should be recalled and recorded.

Best regards

Jorge

Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Javier Rua Gesendet: Freitag, 10. August 2018 01:53 An: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Carlos,

I see you support keeping the current status of two letter-letter country/territory codes. I think that’s in line with general WT thinking and I feel has broad support.

On the other hand, like some other WT members you mention preference for a future policy that’s a bit more liberal or “pro delegation” in regards 3 letter codes that are geonames, limiting the possible applicants to -governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and “public interest entities”.

Could you expand on these “public interest entities”? Could you suggest language in the pertinent “Recommendation” for WT consideration?

Thx

Javier Rúa-Jovet

+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua

On Aug 8, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> wrote:

Dear Annebeth

I fully support Recommendation #1 AS IS

no changes there

I don't support the recommendation on ISO 3 letter (forgot the number). ISO 3 letter codes should be delegated to Govs, ccTLD managers or any other interested PUBLIC INTEREST entities

Don't know if this answers your question

--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA

El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió:

Hi Carlos

Could 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 Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no

8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se>: My 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

--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA

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-gn... [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

+1 Jorge Once again, we are having the same discussion all over again. We are hearing the same arguments pro an against. Can the Secretariat please share a summary of the previous discussion? Best, Rosalía [cid:B190111C-4AAD-456E-809F-8934B6CA8935] On Aug 13, 2018, at 6:43 AM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Hello all For those not attending the San Juan Meeting or not recalling it, it could be worthwhile that Secretariat could circulate a short summary of the rationale(s) that were put forward and discussed regarding 3-letter-country codes (and other country names). We are now at consensus call stage, but this should not mean that everyone has to reiterate all arguments again, especially when there was a f2f meeting in San Juan and conclusions were drawn from it by the co-leads. One thought in this discussion which is key to me (and which I mentioned in San Juan) is that 3-letter country codes are intuitively very closely linked to the country at stake, eg we use the three-letter code, inter alia, for our passports. Connected to this is the thought that such TLDs should be subject to applicable policies developed by the corresponding national communities, similarly to what happens with the 2-letter-country-codes, following in essence a principle of subsidiarity. In San Juan the feeling was that this requires a new kind of policy-making forum within ICANN, as the GNSO deals with generic TLDs that are subject to a quite thorough global policy framework. I feel these ideas are still valid and the many voices in support of them in San Juan should be recalled and recorded. Best regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von Javier Rua Gesendet: Freitag, 10. August 2018 01:53 An: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Carlos, I see you support keeping the current status of two letter-letter country/territory codes. I think that’s in line with general WT thinking and I feel has broad support. On the other hand, like some other WT members you mention preference for a future policy that’s a bit more liberal or “pro delegation” in regards 3 letter codes that are geonames, limiting the possible applicants to -governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and “public interest entities”. Could you expand on these “public interest entities”? Could you suggest language in the pertinent “Recommendation” for WT consideration? Thx Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua On Aug 8, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> wrote: Dear Annebeth I fully support Recommendation #1 AS IS no changes there I don't support the recommendation on ISO 3 letter (forgot the number). ISO 3 letter codes should be delegated to Govs, ccTLD managers or any other interested PUBLIC INTEREST entities Don't know if this answers your question --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió: Hi Carlos Could 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 Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>: My 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 --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA 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<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 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] 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-gn... [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...>. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Dear group, dear Emily, Thanks for these documents, they energized me a LOT. My message is a long read; hence a super short summary upfront (if you hate it: skip the rest): - Many want to prevent that ISO 3166-1 Alpha-3 codes or country name based strings to become a gTLD - They want to further reserve these names – until another “ICANN community body” finds a “global solution” that benefits gNSO AND ccNSO (and GAC) - My suggestion: instead of reserving these strings globally simply let ICANN to STRONGLY recommend to keep them reserved, announcing that a global solution is still in the works, but that in exceptional circumstances when a Government just can’t wait any longer: allow them to grant Government support to such application just as we have a process in place for ISO 3166-2 national subdivisions - (detailed explanations and rationales below; end of summary) After having gone through all of the ICANN 61 WT5 transcript AND the GoogleDocs document again, let me summarize: * In the years leading up to the 2012 AGB the ICANN community couldn’t come up with a solution regarding the application policies for 3166 Alpha-3 codes (.can, .lux) and country names (and their short forms). * Consequently the ICANN community excluded these strings from the 2012 round in order to be able to finally launch the application phase; but clearly stated in the 2012 AGB that a solution should be established in the future * After 2012 the CCWG was created and discussed the issue for YEARS – to no avail. Workable solutions were found; but no consensus established. Finally the CCWG deferred the issue to “another body” * In my view that was one of the motivators to initiate this WT5 * WT5 then seemingly came to these preliminary! conclusions: o Both ISO 3166-1 Alpha-3 code elements AND country names (& their short forms) are closely affiliated with the respective country (territory) o In that regard they are very similar to ISO 3166-1 Alpha-2 code elements (commonly known as ccTLDs) o Some countries have ALREADY voiced interest in applying for their ISO 3166-1 Alpha-3 code (Estonia for example – I know others that want their country name as gTLD but I can’t “out” them at this point) o Seemingly some of the impacted parties (such as some GAC members and some ccTLD managers) voice sympathy with the idea to treat these names (strings) identical to ccTLDs (granting sole policy authority to the country, not ICANN, avoiding the ICANN transaction fees, avoiding ICANN’s WHOIS policies, avoiding the registrar channel, avoiding all the protections ICANN put in place) o But other Governments have no desire to create a second ccTLD or to apply themselves – but still want to retain close control over the application policies o And in fact we ALREADY have a solution for that second batch of Governments in place: it is the same solution that we created for capital cities and for ISO 3166-2 national subdivisions: * Applicants are required to provide governmental support * Thus the relevant Government authority can deny applications that are posing any harm for the stakeholders and constituents of the affiliated geo-entity * A Government could even completely deny ANY application – and keep the string reserved for potential future use * The Government could WITHDRAW their support at any time in the future! Currently our rationale here at WT5 is to globally reserve ALL of these ISO 3166-1 Alpha-3 codes & country names on ICANN level. So it is the ICANN community that reserves these strings. This is very inconsistent with the way we treat similar country-related names: For example capitals and ISO 3166-2 national subdivisions. Why reserving these ISO 3166-1 Alpha-3 codes & country names on GLOBAL level when we could leave such decision to each Government? What scenario do we try to prevent? Whom do we “protect”? Let’s face reality: If we would treat “ISO 3166-1 Alpha-3 codes & country names” just the same way as we treat “capitals and ISO 3166-2 national subdivisions” – do you really think there would be a FLOOD of applications? I don’t think so. For the overwhelming majority of countries an application for the 3-letter code is completely unrealistic! “.che” for …. what? “.deu” for? Even with 16 Million .de domains and absolutely NOTHING anymore available in .de – you could BEAT German companies and private citizens to try using .deu domains: NOBODY would register one. 3-letter code based TLDs will likely only be desirable in countries with a completely depleted ccTLD – AND where the code somehow “works”. So in regard to “free market” driven applications (applicants who want to “make money”) we are probably talking about some 5 to 10 three-letter code applications at max (and even that is probably optimistic). And the full country name as gTLD? “.deutschland”? “.australia”? Give me a break. Again: I can’t see that the “free market” would jump on such names. In reality it would be mostly some kind of public-private partnerships like in Estonia and their desire for a .est! Or driven by the tourism authorities of countries like Spain, Greece or Israel! Likely there would be a private entity that would work CLOSELY with the relevant Government to create a safe namespace to represent the country in all things tourism, investment and eGovernment. More like a “.gov” or “.mil” type of gTLD. May I ask a simply but nasty question? Why do we at WT5 and at the gNSO PDP decide ON BEHALF of these Governments? By definition applications for ISO 3166-1 Alpha-3 codes & country names will only come from either the country itself (Estonia being a good example) or IF from the “private market” then for VERY SIZEABLE entities with a VERY depleted ccTLDs (in other words: countries with a lot of knowledge about ICANN and the new gTLD process). These countries would need to sign off on the application! Let’s say there are 5 to 10 applications from the “free market” (private entities). What do we fear? That these few relevant Governments can’t decide correctly – and erroneously grant the application? Then let’s add a step – and require that the Government in question has a one on one with a small GAC panel – just to make sure that the respective Government doesn’t get “tricked”. So my suggestion: instead of reserving these names on a GLOBAL level – lets grant such authority to the relevant Governments. We could add a paragraph such as: “In the 2012 new gTLD round ISO 3166-1 Alpha-3 codes & country names were globally reserved in order to find a future global application policy for how they can be applied for. Some countries and ccTLD managers would like to see these strings subjected to the ccNSO policy authority; thus recommend to keep these strings further reserved. Until a global solution is being established ICANN will accept applications for ISO 3166-1 Alpha-3 codes & country names only in exceptional cases and in conjunction with a direct consultation with the relevant Government authority in order to establish that: - the Government authority is aware of the implications of granting their ISO 3166-1 Alpha-3 code or country name as gTLD - that the Government is aware that the ICANN community recommends to currently not grant such applications until a global policy is being established - that the relevant Government authority is providing support for the application (letter of support) - ICANN also recommends to the relevant Government authority to consult with their relevant ccTLD manager AND their GAC member to be aware of their position on the issue: ICANN will make an effort to connect these entities with each other (remark: we could even go so far that both the GAC member AND the ccTLD manager have to sign off as well!) Such policy would surely defer any malicious applicant. Nobody goes for “.spain” as a purely business oriented application with the aim to “make money” (the typical portfolio applicant) – when they know that Spain then will talk to ICANN, their GAC member, their ccTLD manager and that the Spanish Government is actually being advised by ICANN to keep the string reserved! My suggested solution would leave open a path to establishing a global policy for the future. But it would also enable those country entities that REALLY REALLY want their “ISO 3166-1 Alpha-3 code or country name”-based gTLD in the next round to apply for it (more likely: employing the services of a third party to organize the application and the operation of such gTLD in concert with their eGovernment efforts, investment authority efforts, National Airline, national Olympic Committee, tourism board, etc). We would probably see some 10 to 20 applications at TOPS. If these work out fine – and provide benefits for the respective communities – they could serve as blueprints for future applications. Just as it happened with city names: which initially NOBODY wanted to be established (you can’t start to IMAGINE what a tough job it was to convince ALL levels at ICANN that smth like .berlin would serve ANY benefit for ANYBODY). I see these gTLDs as being similar to .gov: they would likely NOT follow classical economical patterns but rather being financed by a plethora of entities close to the Government – like the investment authority, tourism authority, national airline, sports authority, etc! This could serve as a VERY useful resource for a country to “market” itself globally. Something that won’t work AT ALL on basis of their national ccTLD – because the relevant names might be taken and there is no way to create the same “trust”-level as with a gTLD like I am proposing it! This type of gTLD would be most likely non-profit (which could be a pre-requisite by ICAN as well), public-benefit, registrant-authenticated! I just don’t like the idea that we categorially deny ALL Governments to get their strings – just because some GAC members and some ccTLD managers can’t warm up with the thought that these kind of strings will be gTLDs (even when I completely understand THEIR rationales as well). And after ALL the policy efforts of OVER A DECADE – and the next round starting only in 2 or 3 years – it would likely take AT MINIMUM another 5 years to come up with a way how ISO 3166-1 Alpha-3 codes or country names can ever be applied for (probably a very optimistic timeline). And that’s really going to harm some countries – and ultimately their citizens and constituents. So let a Government decide to NOT honor ICANN’s recommendations of keeping these names reserved – if such Government is ready to move on under the umbrella of gTLD policies. With this contribution I am acknowledging the status quo of the current discussion. Acknowledging that ICANN strictly recommends to all public authorities to NOT support any of such applications. I acknowledge that a future body should seek a solution (even when we still have some 2 years till the next round – and could still do so in time). I merely suggest to grant the exceptional authority to single Governments (and relevant ccTLD managers and GAC members) to IGNORE ICANN’s global recommendations. This would foster innovation and might create new solutions – which could serve as future models. Thoughts? Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Montag, 13. August 2018 18:04 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; javrua@gmail.com Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear all, You can find the recording and transcript on the meeting in San Juan here: https://61.schedule.icann.org/meetings/647704. The issue of whether WT5 should address future delegation of country and territory names is included in the Working Document beginning at the bottom of page 20. All are welcome to add comments if they feel that there were points raised that are not sufficiently captured in the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRU.... Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> " <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > Date: Monday, 13 August 2018 at 14:44 To: "javrua@gmail.com <mailto:javrua@gmail.com> " <javrua@gmail.com <mailto:javrua@gmail.com> > Cc: "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: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Hello all For those not attending the San Juan Meeting or not recalling it, it could be worthwhile that Secretariat could circulate a short summary of the rationale(s) that were put forward and discussed regarding 3-letter-country codes (and other country names). We are now at consensus call stage, but this should not mean that everyone has to reiterate all arguments again, especially when there was a f2f meeting in San Juan and conclusions were drawn from it by the co-leads. One thought in this discussion which is key to me (and which I mentioned in San Juan) is that 3-letter country codes are intuitively very closely linked to the country at stake, eg we use the three-letter code, inter alia, for our passports. Connected to this is the thought that such TLDs should be subject to applicable policies developed by the corresponding national communities, similarly to what happens with the 2-letter-country-codes, following in essence a principle of subsidiarity. In San Juan the feeling was that this requires a new kind of policy-making forum within ICANN, as the GNSO deals with generic TLDs that are subject to a quite thorough global policy framework. I feel these ideas are still valid and the many voices in support of them in San Juan should be recalled and recorded. Best regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > Im Auftrag von Javier Rua Gesendet: Freitag, 10. August 2018 01:53 An: Carlos Raul Gutierrez < <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Cc: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Carlos, I see you support keeping the current status of two letter-letter country/territory codes. I think that’s in line with general WT thinking and I feel has broad support. On the other hand, like some other WT members you mention preference for a future policy that’s a bit more liberal or “pro delegation” in regards 3 letter codes that are geonames, limiting the possible applicants to -governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and “public interest entities”. Could you expand on these “public interest entities”? Could you suggest language in the pertinent “Recommendation” for WT consideration? Thx Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua [linkedin.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jav...> On Aug 8, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> > wrote: Dear Annebeth I fully support Recommendation #1 AS IS no changes there I don't support the recommendation on ISO 3 letter (forgot the number). ISO 3 letter codes should be delegated to Govs, ccTLD managers or any other interested PUBLIC INTEREST entities Don't know if this answers your question --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió: Hi Carlos Could 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 Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> >: My 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 --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA 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 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > Date: Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 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] 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... [gnso.icann.org]. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Thank you, Carlos Duly noted. Kindly Annebeth Annebeth B Lange UNINETT Norid AS 11. aug. 2018 kl. 18:00 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>: Dear 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 carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió: Hi Carlos Could 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 Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>: My 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 --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA 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<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 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] 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-gn... [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...>. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Yes, I have been following this as well and am supporting this wording. Marita On 8/11/2018 9:14 PM, Alfredo Calderon 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 Calderon Email: calderon.alfredo@gmail.com <mailto:calderon.alfredo@gmail.com> Twitter: acalderon52 LinkedIn: pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52 <http://pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52> Skype: alfredo_1212 Business Card: http://myonepage.com/acalderon Blog: aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com <http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com>

On Aug 11, 2018, at 12:00 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> wrote:

...

Dear 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 carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA

El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió:

...

Hi Carlos Could 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 Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>

8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>:

...

My 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

--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA

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 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *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] 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] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...>.

If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please emailgnso-secs@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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

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 Consultant calderon.alfredo@gmail.com |http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com | Skype: Alfredo_1212| wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon

Get your own email signature

On Aug 11, 2018, at 3:31 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:

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 Calderon Email: calderon.alfredo@gmail.com Twitter: acalderon52 LinkedIn: pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52 Skype: alfredo_1212 Business Card: http://myonepage.com/acalderon Blog: aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com

...

On Aug 11, 2018, at 12:00 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> wrote:

Dear 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 carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA

El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió:

...

Hi Carlos

Could 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 Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no

...

8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se>: My 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

--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA

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-gn... [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-wt5 -- Farzaneh

I do not understand the anti government sentiments of some people It is a little standing issue. We need to work together in a fair basis There are no unfounded and baseless reservation Whatever could be categorised as unfounded or baseless are to ignore the very right of the people of countries. This has nothing to do with governments There is no legitimacy on these claims They are considered as invasion of country babes whether Two letter or three letters Regards Sent from my iPhone

On 17 Aug 2018, at 04:46, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:

Alfredo, 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.

Farzaneh

...

On 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 Consultant calderon.alfredo@gmail.com |http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com | Skype: Alfredo_1212| wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon

Get your own email signature

...

On Aug 11, 2018, at 3:31 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:

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 Calderon Email: calderon.alfredo@gmail.com Twitter: acalderon52 LinkedIn: pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52 Skype: alfredo_1212 Business Card: http://myonepage.com/acalderon Blog: aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com

...

On Aug 11, 2018, at 12:00 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> wrote:

Dear 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 carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA

El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió:

...

Hi Carlos

Could 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 Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no

> 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se>: > My 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 > > > > > > --- > Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez > carlosraul@gutierrez.se > +506 8837 7176 > Aparatado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > > > 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-gn... [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-wt5 -- Farzaneh

---

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

Calling names babes! Ha ha!!

On Aug 17, 2018, at 11:30 AM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:

Invasion of country babes? Do elaborate on that, it's exciting for this dry group.

There is No anti gov sentiment. Govs have no legitimate reason over Two letter and three letter names that can be generic. It was unfair from the beginning to allocate them automatically to govs. It still is. Even In GAC there is no consensus about it at the second level.

...

On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 11:01 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: I do not understand the anti government sentiments of some people It is a little standing issue. We need to work together in a fair basis There are no unfounded and baseless reservation Whatever could be categorised as unfounded or baseless are to ignore the very right of the people of countries. This has nothing to do with governments There is no legitimacy on these claims They are considered as invasion of country babes whether Two letter or three letters Regards

Sent from my iPhone

...

On 17 Aug 2018, at 04:46, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:

Alfredo, 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.

Farzaneh

...

On 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 Consultant calderon.alfredo@gmail.com |http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com | Skype: Alfredo_1212| wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon

Get your own email signature

...

On Aug 11, 2018, at 3:31 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:

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 Calderon Email: calderon.alfredo@gmail.com Twitter: acalderon52 LinkedIn: pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52 Skype: alfredo_1212 Business Card: http://myonepage.com/acalderon Blog: aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com

> On Aug 11, 2018, at 12:00 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> wrote: > > Dear 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 > carlosraul@gutierrez.se > +506 8837 7176 > Aparatado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > > > > El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió: > >> Hi Carlos >> >> Could 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 Lange >> Special Adviser International Policy >> UNINETT Norid AS >> Phone: +47 959 11 559 >> Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no >> >> >> >>> 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se>: >>> My 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez >>> carlosraul@gutierrez.se >>> +506 8837 7176 >>> Aparatado 1571-1000 >>> COSTA RICA >>> >>> >>> >>> 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-gn... [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-wt5 -- Farzaneh

---

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

---

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

I fully concur with the Anti - government bias. Governments are an equal stakeholder and to the best of my knowledge there no Non-governmental Constituency Group (yet) in ICANN. On August 17, 2018 9:01:33 AM CST, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

I do not understand the anti government sentiments of some people It is a little standing issue. We need to work together in a fair basis There are no unfounded and baseless reservation Whatever could be categorised as unfounded or baseless are to ignore the very right of the people of countries. This has nothing to do with governments There is no legitimacy on these claims They are considered as invasion of country babes whether Two letter or three letters Regards

Sent from my iPhone

...

On 17 Aug 2018, at 04:46, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:

Alfredo, 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.

Farzaneh

...

On 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 Consultant calderon.alfredo@gmail.com

|http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com | Skype: Alfredo_1212| wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon

...

Get your own email signature

...

On Aug 11, 2018, at 3:31 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:

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 Calderon Email: calderon.alfredo@gmail.com Twitter: acalderon52 LinkedIn: pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52 Skype: alfredo_1212 Business Card: http://myonepage.com/acalderon Blog: aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com

...

On Aug 11, 2018, at 12:00 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> wrote:

Dear 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 carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA

El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió:

> Hi Carlos > > Could 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 Lange > Special Adviser International Policy > UNINETT Norid AS > Phone: +47 959 11 559 > Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no > > > >> 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se>: >> My 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> --- >> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez >> carlosraul@gutierrez.se >> +506 8837 7176 >> Aparatado 1571-1000 >> COSTA RICA >> >> >> >> 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-gn... [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-wt5 -- Farzaneh

---

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

-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

+1 Alfredo. Regards Alberto De: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> En nombre de Alfredo Calderon Enviado el: sábado, 11 de agosto de 2018 04:14 p.m. Para: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. 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 Calderon Email: calderon.alfredo@gmail.com <mailto:calderon.alfredo@gmail.com> Twitter: acalderon52 LinkedIn: pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52 <http://pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52> Skype: alfredo_1212 Business Card: http://myonepage.com/acalderon Blog: aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com <http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com> On Aug 11, 2018, at 12:00 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> > wrote: Dear 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 carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió: Hi Carlos Could 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 Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> >: My 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 --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA 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 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > Date: Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 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] 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... [gnso.icann.org]. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

A few thoughts on the ISO 3166 3-letter codes. First, WT5 is fully competent to deal wit the issue of whether, when and how strings identical to the existing ISO 3155 3-letter codes could be applied for and delegated. These are in the gTLD space. Second, I would strongly object to any restriction on 3-letter strings that DO NOT match existing ISO 3166 letter codes. The "original" gTLDs were three letter strings -- .com, .net, .org, .gov. .mil, .int, .edu. Third, there is no "tradition" of (or technological reason for) ISO 3166 3-letter codes being used for top level domain names connected with the related countries and territories. So why make that assumption now? Fourth, I agree with Farzaneh that adding current ccTLD operators into the mix as part of the privileged class makes this recommendation an unfathomable mess. This is not the time or the place to discuss the myriad ways that ccTLD operators do or don't relate to the countries that the ccTLD is related to. And let's certainly not get into the issues raised by ccTLDs that function as gTLDs but are beyond the reach of gTLD policy. Let's just keep the ccTLD situation "unique" and move away from that electrified fence. Replicating the current ccTLD situation in the 3-letter space would be a gross error in judgment. Fifth, there are over 45 current ISO 3166 3-letter codes that are equivalent to strings with other meanings -- words in English or other languages, currently delegated gTLDs, or acronyms. Why should the future of these 3 letter strings have anything to do with any countries, where they have other significant meanings? Of course, nothing prevents a country or territory from applying for the related 3 letter code. The 3 letter codes with other meanings are: *CODE* *Meaning* *Related Country or Territory* AGO English word Angola AND English word Andorra ANT English word Netherlands Antilles ARE English word United Arab Emirates ARM English word Armenia BEL Italian word Belgium BEN First name Benin BRB Acronym for “Be Right Back” Barbados CAN English word Canada COD English word Congo, the Democratic Republic of the COG English word Congo COM Current gTLD Comoros CUB English word Cuba DOM First name (short for “Dominic”); BDSM term Dominican Republic ESP Acronym for “Extra-Sensory Perception” Spain EST Word in various languages Estonia FIN English word Finland FRA Italian France FRO English word Faroe Islands GAB English word Gabon GEO English word Georgia GIN English word Guinea GUM English word Guam GUY English word Guyana HUN English word Hungary IOT Acronym for “Internet of Things” British Indian Ocean Territory IRL Acronym for “Internet Resource Locater” or “In Real Life” Ireland JAM English word Jamaica KEN First name Kenya KIR Drink Kiribati LIE English word Liechtenstein LUX English word Luxembourg MAC Popular line of computers Macao MAR English word Morocco NCL Acronym for “National Consumers League” or “Norwegian Cruise Lines” New Caledonia NOR English word Norway PAN English word Panama PER English word Peru POL Short for “Politician” Poland PRY English word Paraguay QAT Narcotic leaf Qatar SAU German word Saudi Arabia SUR French word Suriname TON English word, French word Tonga TUN English word Tunisia VAT English word; Acronym for “Value Added Tax” Holy See (Vatican City State) I would recommend that we either make a policy determination now, including a statement of rationale, or that we just leave this for a future process. A tossed-off non-recommendation that seeks to limit or prejudice future policy work is really the worst of both worlds, and should be avoided. Personally, I would be in favor of a recommendation that makes the current 3166 3-letter codes "unreserved" and open for applications, with a restriction that any application that seeks to associate the TLD with the related country or territory requires the consent or non-objection of that country or territory. Best regards, Greg On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 7:12 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:

Carlos,

I start to better understand your motivation: And I agree with you that this WT5 can NOT state, that ISO 3166 Alpha-3 code element based gTLDs can NEVER be assigned. Instead this WT5 simply agreed that it’s competence doesn’t mandate any decision – hence for the time being the AGB 2012 status will be upheld – until some other policy making body finds a solution in the future.

But please let’s not already now create restrictions – if WT5 doesn’t have the competence to create a policy in regard to ISO 3166 Alpha-3 code element based gTLDs – then it surely doesn’t have the competence to create restrictions.

Insofar my suggestion for the draft:

*Recommendation #2 (last sentence):“The ICANN community may want to consider whether a future process should be established to determine if, when, and how alpha-3 codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard can be applied for.”*

*Recommendation #3 (last sentence):*

*“The ICANN community may want to consider whether a future process should be established to determine if, when, and how country & territory names listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard can be applied for.”Recommendation #4 (last sentence):*

*“The ICANN community may want to consider whether a future process should be established to determine if, when, and how country & territory short-form names listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard can be applied for.”*

*The same for #5 to #8*

What I honestly miss is an explanation why WT5 did not came up with a policy itself! It is my understanding that we declared the competence vested in the WT5 body as not authoritative enough to create policy. Right? In the future yet ANOTHER body (like the CWG or this WT5) will sit there and think: “Why have these people not simply created a policy”? We ought to explain ourselves! Because the explanation will provide clear guidance as to how a future policy making body has to be established. Remember: When we started WT5 we thought we find a solution. Then we suddenly declared ourselves “incompetent” – or not being authorized.

Thanks,

Alexander

*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Carlos Raul Gutierrez *Sent:* Saturday, August 11, 2018 7:00 PM *To:* Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Dear 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

carlosraul@gutierrez.se

+506 8837 7176

Aparatado 1571-1000

COSTA RICA

El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió:

Hi Carlos

Could 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 Lange

Special Adviser International Policy

UNINETT Norid AS

Phone: +47 959 11 559

Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no

8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se>:

My 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

---

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez

carlosraul@gutierrez.se

+506 8837 7176

Aparatado 1571-1000

COSTA RICA

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-gn... [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> .

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

I support the stand here and think we need to do the requested and ensure a proper way forward.

On Aug 13, 2018, at 15:45, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:

Dear Group, <>

I am voicing agreement for Greg’s narratives – and would like to support them! In a nutshell: 1. Yes; Greg is right that we ought to be competent to deal with the issue at hand: I made numerous requests during the launch of this WT5 – and tried to make sure that we declare ourselves “competent” regarding the policy development for country 3-letter codes and names. 2. We have ZERO reason to even DISCUSS a “ban” of non-“ISO 3166-1 Alpha-3 Code based three character strings”. While ALL two character strings should be specially reserved for the ccNSO there is no reason whatsoever to replicate such measure in the 3 character cloud. 3. Greg is right: It would be the sensitive thing to treat ISO 3166-1 Alpha-3 based strings (country 3 letter codes) just EXACTLY the same way as we already do with the ISO 3166-2 “country subdivision code” based strings. They both have about equal relevance and importance. I bet if we wouldn’t work closely with ICANN we would have NEVER heard about “DEU” (and would not affiliate it with Germany) but we have probably all heard about “Berlin” or “Hamburg” (2 of the 12 German “subdivision codes”). In many countries the subdivision codes are better known than the country 3-letter code; and certainly more “in use”. In that regard: If an applicant would apply for such ISO 3166-1 Alpha-3 based string they would need (like for a national subdivision) Governmental support (letter of non-objection). 4. In case we would STILL end up declaring ourselves “incompetent” (not mandated, WT5 not having the requisite authority, etc.) I agree that we should simply state that, and explain WHY. But we should refrain from creating artificial restrictions to which future policy making bodies then might feel bound. Either we make policy NOW – or we abstain and postpone it to another body. But introducing SOME “policies” (e.g. restricting issuance of said strings to ccTLD managers, or Governments) seems inconsistent with us declaring to be incompetent. Are we “half-competent”?

If we walk away from one of THE main tasks in this WT5 – then please let us issue an explanation as to the REASONS. We started this group explicitly with a self-mandate to solve the problem – obviously we misjudged our competence and or authority – we ought to put this into writing that the NEXT group (after CWG and WT5) doesn’t end up yet AGAIN with empty hands.

Thanks,

Alexander

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Montag, 13. August 2018 07:04 To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

A few thoughts on the ISO 3166 3-letter codes.

First, WT5 is fully competent to deal wit the issue of whether, when and how strings identical to the existing ISO 3155 3-letter codes could be applied for and delegated. These are in the gTLD space.

Second, I would strongly object to any restriction on 3-letter strings that DO NOT match existing ISO 3166 letter codes. The "original" gTLDs were three letter strings -- .com, .net, .org, .gov. .mil, .int, .edu.

Third, there is no "tradition" of (or technological reason for) ISO 3166 3-letter codes being used for top level domain names connected with the related countries and territories. So why make that assumption now?

Fourth, I agree with Farzaneh that adding current ccTLD operators into the mix as part of the privileged class makes this recommendation an unfathomable mess. This is not the time or the place to discuss the myriad ways that ccTLD operators do or don't relate to the countries that the ccTLD is related to. And let's certainly not get into the issues raised by ccTLDs that function as gTLDs but are beyond the reach of gTLD policy. Let's just keep the ccTLD situation "unique" and move away from that electrified fence. Replicating the current ccTLD situation in the 3-letter space would be a gross error in judgment.

Fifth, there are over 45 current ISO 3166 3-letter codes that are equivalent to strings with other meanings -- words in English or other languages, currently delegated gTLDs, or acronyms. Why should the future of these 3 letter strings have anything to do with any countries, where they have other significant meanings? Of course, nothing prevents a country or territory from applying for the related 3 letter code. The 3 letter codes with other meanings are:

CODE Meaning Related Country or Territory AGO English word Angola AND English word Andorra ANT English word Netherlands Antilles ARE English word United Arab Emirates ARM English word Armenia BEL Italian word Belgium BEN First name Benin BRB Acronym for “Be Right Back” Barbados CAN English word Canada COD English word Congo, the Democratic Republic of the COG English word Congo COM Current gTLD Comoros CUB English word Cuba DOM First name (short for “Dominic”); BDSM term Dominican Republic ESP Acronym for “Extra-Sensory Perception” Spain EST Word in various languages Estonia FIN English word Finland FRA Italian France FRO English word Faroe Islands GAB English word Gabon GEO English word Georgia GIN English word Guinea GUM English word Guam GUY English word Guyana HUN English word Hungary IOT Acronym for “Internet of Things” British Indian Ocean Territory IRL Acronym for “Internet Resource Locater” or “In Real Life” Ireland JAM English word Jamaica KEN First name Kenya KIR Drink Kiribati LIE English word Liechtenstein LUX English word Luxembourg MAC Popular line of computers Macao MAR English word Morocco NCL Acronym for “National Consumers League” or “Norwegian Cruise Lines” New Caledonia NOR English word Norway PAN English word Panama PER English word Peru POL Short for “Politician” Poland PRY English word Paraguay QAT Narcotic leaf Qatar SAU German word Saudi Arabia SUR French word Suriname TON English word, French word Tonga TUN English word Tunisia VAT English word; Acronym for “Value Added Tax” Holy See (Vatican City State)

I would recommend that we either make a policy determination now, including a statement of rationale, or that we just leave this for a future process. A tossed-off non-recommendation that seeks to limit or prejudice future policy work is really the worst of both worlds, and should be avoided.

Personally, I would be in favor of a recommendation that makes the current 3166 3-letter codes "unreserved" and open for applications, with a restriction that any application that seeks to associate the TLD with the related country or territory requires the consent or non-objection of that country or territory.

Best regards,

Greg

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 7:12 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:

...

Carlos,

I start to better understand your motivation: And I agree with you that this WT5 can NOT state, that ISO 3166 Alpha-3 code element based gTLDs can NEVER be assigned. Instead this WT5 simply agreed that it’s competence doesn’t mandate any decision – hence for the time being the AGB 2012 status will be upheld – until some other policy making body finds a solution in the future.

But please let’s not already now create restrictions – if WT5 doesn’t have the competence to create a policy in regard to ISO 3166 Alpha-3 code element based gTLDs – then it surely doesn’t have the competence to create restrictions.

Insofar my suggestion for the draft: Recommendation #2 (last sentence): “The ICANN community may want to consider whether a future process should be established to determine if, when, and how alpha-3 codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard can be applied for.”

Recommendation #3 (last sentence): “The ICANN community may want to consider whether a future process should be established to determine if, when, and how country & territory names listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard can be applied for.”

Recommendation #4 (last sentence): “The ICANN community may want to consider whether a future process should be established to determine if, when, and how country & territory short-form names listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard can be applied for.”

The same for #5 to #8

What I honestly miss is an explanation why WT5 did not came up with a policy itself! It is my understanding that we declared the competence vested in the WT5 body as not authoritative enough to create policy. Right? In the future yet ANOTHER body (like the CWG or this WT5) will sit there and think: “Why have these people not simply created a policy”? We ought to explain ourselves! Because the explanation will provide clear guidance as to how a future policy making body has to be established. Remember: When we started WT5 we thought we find a solution. Then we suddenly declared ourselves “incompetent” – or not being authorized.

Thanks,

Alexander

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Carlos Raul Gutierrez Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2018 7:00 PM To: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Dear 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 carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA

El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió:

...

Hi Carlos

Could 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 Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>

8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>:

...

My 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

--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA

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 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 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] 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-gn... [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...>.

If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>

---

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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>_______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>

Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"

Dear Alexander, Why we do not have mandate Why we do not have competence Why we always postpone any useful decision Why we can not declare that ISO 3166 Alpha-3 code element based gTLDs can NEVER be assigned Reghards Kavouss On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:12 AM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:

Carlos,

I start to better understand your motivation: And I agree with you that this WT5 can NOT state, that ISO 3166 Alpha-3 code element based gTLDs can NEVER be assigned. Instead this WT5 simply agreed that it’s competence doesn’t mandate any decision – hence for the time being the AGB 2012 status will be upheld – until some other policy making body finds a solution in the future.

But please let’s not already now create restrictions – if WT5 doesn’t have the competence to create a policy in regard to ISO 3166 Alpha-3 code element based gTLDs – then it surely doesn’t have the competence to create restrictions.

Insofar my suggestion for the draft:

*Recommendation #2 (last sentence):“The ICANN community may want to consider whether a future process should be established to determine if, when, and how alpha-3 codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard can be applied for.”*

*Recommendation #3 (last sentence):*

*“The ICANN community may want to consider whether a future process should be established to determine if, when, and how country & territory names listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard can be applied for.”Recommendation #4 (last sentence):*

*“The ICANN community may want to consider whether a future process should be established to determine if, when, and how country & territory short-form names listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard can be applied for.”*

*The same for #5 to #8*

What I honestly miss is an explanation why WT5 did not came up with a policy itself! It is my understanding that we declared the competence vested in the WT5 body as not authoritative enough to create policy. Right? In the future yet ANOTHER body (like the CWG or this WT5) will sit there and think: “Why have these people not simply created a policy”? We ought to explain ourselves! Because the explanation will provide clear guidance as to how a future policy making body has to be established. Remember: When we started WT5 we thought we find a solution. Then we suddenly declared ourselves “incompetent” – or not being authorized.

Thanks,

Alexander

*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Carlos Raul Gutierrez *Sent:* Saturday, August 11, 2018 7:00 PM *To:* Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Dear 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

carlosraul@gutierrez.se

+506 8837 7176

Aparatado 1571-1000

COSTA RICA

El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió:

Hi Carlos

Could 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 Lange

Special Adviser International Policy

UNINETT Norid AS

Phone: +47 959 11 559

Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no

8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se>:

My 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

---

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez

carlosraul@gutierrez.se

+506 8837 7176

Aparatado 1571-1000

COSTA RICA

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-gn... [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> .

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