Draft comment to WT-5 session during ICANN61
Dear Leadership of LACRALO, As some of you know, I spent almost 3 years in a CWG ccNSO-GNSO on the use of country and territory names, and we got stuck on the 3 letter codes of the ISO 3166-1 list. Last week, during the SubPro WT5 meeting in PR, we also got stuck on that very same list and I almost lost my hope of any progress. But after talks with members of the WT5, including the Swiss GAC rep, the ccTLD managers of Estonia and New Zealand, and the most able ALAC Co-Chair of WT5, I came with some ideas on how to get rid of this stumbling block and continue making progress with a policy for full geo names for the future. In that sense I kindly ask for your comments, additions, corrections and eventual support of the draft motion attached, that I want to add to my comments on the microphone during that session. Of course, I want to submit my comments before the next call which is next week......... Glad to add the names of anyone who supports the motion DRAFT for comments and expression of support Dear WT5 Participants: We trust that all of us have returned home OK from San Juan following ICANN 61. For the record and with a view to our next conference call on 28 March, 05.00 UTC, this is just to recall some points made during the discussion on Wednesday morning, 14 March. For the Subsequent procedures PDP to go forward without delay, we need to make progress on a new geo.TLD policy for “full names” fast. Based on previous efforts (like the previous policy efforts of the ccNSO, the ccNSO-GNSO-CWG that followed, and the efforts within the GAC) it is not advisable to pursue the idea that the 2012 Applicant Guide Book (AGB) reserved list of geo.names (based on codes dependent on outside reference lists) a relevant default. That text (AGB) effectively failed to address several classes of names that are of significant interest to user communities, represents today a lacunae which gave rise to several disagreements and delays last time around (.amazon, .africa, .persiangulf). The first registered ccTLDs were .us <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.us>, .uk <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.uk>, and .il <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.il>, all registered in 1985. But It has taken until today to (not) make a decision on the 3 letter alpha codes. In the meantime, other geography-related top-level domains have been successfully delegated, like is the case for the city TLDs (.Berlin, .London, .Rio, etc.) as well as some region and new countries, like .cat, .bzh and .srb. Obviously, as more exception emerge to reference codes dependent on outside reference lists there is a growing space for conflict. There remains a tremendous and growing inconsistency in the particular case with the 3-letter codes of the ISO 3166-1 list which own the last round served as the basis for another ineffective reservation. For that reason I have suggested during our meeting in ICANN61 that it is important for WT5 to eliminate the restrictions of the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list is an important step, so that an effective “full.geo.name” evaluation policy, consistent with modern developments in the DNS space can be developed for subsequent rounds. Short codes/acronyms of the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list are not “Generic” in the usual ICANN sense of the DNS expansion but for few exceptions. For that reason, I submit this modest draft PROPOSAL TO DELEGATE 3 letter codes to interested Governments and other geo related public interest entities previous or during the next round. Taking the delegation of 2-letter codes to ccTLD managers as a precedent n the mid-80s, we should assume that there is demand out there for the differentiated use of 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list codes, either by Governments, public entities, communities and even some ccTLD managers themselves. So instead of the 3-letter codes of the ISO- 3166-1 list remaining reserved, the WT5 should analyze the possibility of using subsequent rounds and use the proven evaluation methodology and assigning process of the last round (like in the case for city names) for the ISO list 3 letter codes. This option to delegate/register the whole 3-letter code ISO list, opens the space for other public interest parties to apply for a few IGO/IGNO specific 3 letter codes that also have been reserved (IOC, WHO, IMF) and then leaving all other 3 letter permutation outside the ISO list and IGO/INGOs open for creative applications in the generic domain space. A back of the envelope calculation will show that offering to delegate the first group and taking into account the existing 3 letter codes will amount to a total of less than 500 TLDs. That leaves more than 20’000 possible permutation open for evaluation as new gTLDs. WT5 should seriously consider a delegation process for the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list (as opposed to maintaining an incongruent reservation list) under the following assignment conditions 1. Right of First Refusal To Governments of countries/territories to THEIR 3 Letter Codes (ISO...); 2. Right of Second Refusal al ccTLD manager del país o territorio correspondiente (en PR sería Gauss/PR Top Level Domain, no el Estado Libre Asociado); 3. Right of the Third Refusal to a pertinent linguistic, ethnic, indigenous community or people as said concepts are defined by International Law; as long as they get support from the respective political entities 4. If none of the above show interest in the pertinent 3 Letter Code of the ISO 3166-1, then to any IGO/INGO that has requested protection in the past 5. Finally, if then string shall be an available gTLD for any qualified applicant. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter / ALS Costa Rica skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
Traduccion cortesia de Google Estimado Liderazgo de LACRALO, Como algunos de ustedes saben, pasé casi 3 años en un CWG ccNSO-GNSO sobre el uso de nombres de países y territorios, y nos quedamos atrapados en los códigos de 3 letras de la lista ISO 3166-1. La semana pasada, durante la reunión de SubPro WT5 en PR, también nos quedamos atrapados en la misma lista y casi pierdo la esperanza de algún progreso. Pero después de las conversaciones con los miembros del WT5, incluido el representante del GAC de Suiza, los gerentes de ccTLD de Estonia y Nueva Zelanda, y el copresidente más hábil de ALA del WT5, vine con algunas ideas sobre cómo librarme de este obstáculo y Continuar haciendo progresos con una política de nombres geográficos completos para el futuro. En ese sentido, le pido amablemente sus comentarios, adiciones, correcciones y el eventual respaldo del proyecto de moción adjunto, que quiero agregar a mis comentarios en el micrófono durante esa sesión. Por supuesto, quiero enviar mis comentarios antes de la próxima convocatoria, que es la próxima semana ......... Me alegra agregar los nombres de cualquiera que apoye el movimiento BORRADOR para comentarios y expresión de apoyo Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@isoc-cr.org> Date: Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 4:51 PM Subject: Draft comment to WT-5 session during ICANN61 To: LACRALO <lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob@gmail.com>, Alberto Soto < asoto@ibero-americano.org>, "rihogris@gmail.com" <rihogris@gmail.com>, "Me on BartlettMorgan.com" <me@bartlettmorgan.com>, Bartlett Morgan < bartlett.morgan@gmail.com> Dear Leadership of LACRALO, As some of you know, I spent almost 3 years in a CWG ccNSO-GNSO on the use of country and territory names, and we got stuck on the 3 letter codes of the ISO 3166-1 list. Last week, during the SubPro WT5 meeting in PR, we also got stuck on that very same list and I almost lost my hope of any progress. But after talks with members of the WT5, including the Swiss GAC rep, the ccTLD managers of Estonia and New Zealand, and the most able ALAC Co-Chair of WT5, I came with some ideas on how to get rid of this stumbling block and continue making progress with a policy for full geo names for the future. In that sense I kindly ask for your comments, additions, corrections and eventual support of the draft motion attached, that I want to add to my comments on the microphone during that session. Of course, I want to submit my comments before the next call which is next week......... Glad to add the names of anyone who supports the motion DRAFT for comments and expression of support Dear WT5 Participants: We trust that all of us have returned home OK from San Juan following ICANN 61. For the record and with a view to our next conference call on 28 March, 05.00 UTC, this is just to recall some points made during the discussion on Wednesday morning, 14 March. For the Subsequent procedures PDP to go forward without delay, we need to make progress on a new geo.TLD policy for “full names” fast. Based on previous efforts (like the previous policy efforts of the ccNSO, the ccNSO-GNSO-CWG that followed, and the efforts within the GAC) it is not advisable to pursue the idea that the 2012 Applicant Guide Book (AGB) reserved list of geo.names (based on codes dependent on outside reference lists) a relevant default. That text (AGB) effectively failed to address several classes of names that are of significant interest to user communities, represents today a lacunae which gave rise to several disagreements and delays last time around (.amazon, .africa, .persiangulf). The first registered ccTLDs were .us <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.us>, .uk <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.uk>, and .il <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.il>, all registered in 1985. But It has taken until today to (not) make a decision on the 3 letter alpha codes. In the meantime, other geography-related top-level domains have been successfully delegated, like is the case for the city TLDs (.Berlin, .London, .Rio, etc.) as well as some region and new countries, like .cat, .bzh and .srb. Obviously, as more exception emerge to reference codes dependent on outside reference lists there is a growing space for conflict. There remains a tremendous and growing inconsistency in the particular case with the 3-letter codes of the ISO 3166-1 list which own the last round served as the basis for another ineffective reservation. For that reason I have suggested during our meeting in ICANN61 that it is important for WT5 to eliminate the restrictions of the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list is an important step, so that an effective “full.geo.name” evaluation policy, consistent with modern developments in the DNS space can be developed for subsequent rounds. Short codes/acronyms of the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list are not “Generic” in the usual ICANN sense of the DNS expansion but for few exceptions. For that reason, I submit this modest draft PROPOSAL TO DELEGATE 3 letter codes to interested Governments and other geo related public interest entities previous or during the next round. Taking the delegation of 2-letter codes to ccTLD managers as a precedent n the mid-80s, we should assume that there is demand out there for the differentiated use of 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list codes, either by Governments, public entities, communities and even some ccTLD managers themselves. So instead of the 3-letter codes of the ISO- 3166-1 list remaining reserved, the WT5 should analyze the possibility of using subsequent rounds and use the proven evaluation methodology and assigning process of the last round (like in the case for city names) for the ISO list 3 letter codes. This option to delegate/register the whole 3-letter code ISO list, opens the space for other public interest parties to apply for a few IGO/IGNO specific 3 letter codes that also have been reserved (IOC, WHO, IMF) and then leaving all other 3 letter permutation outside the ISO list and IGO/INGOs open for creative applications in the generic domain space. A back of the envelope calculation will show that offering to delegate the first group and taking into account the existing 3 letter codes will amount to a total of less than 500 TLDs. That leaves more than 20’000 possible permutation open for evaluation as new gTLDs. WT5 should seriously consider a delegation process for the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list (as opposed to maintaining an incongruent reservation list) under the following assignment conditions 1. Right of First Refusal To Governments of countries/territories to THEIR 3 Letter Codes (ISO...); 2. Right of Second Refusal al ccTLD manager del país o territorio correspondiente (en PR sería Gauss/PR Top Level Domain, no el Estado Libre Asociado); 3. Right of the Third Refusal to a pertinent linguistic, ethnic, indigenous community or people as said concepts are defined by International Law; as long as they get support from the respective political entities 4. If none of the above show interest in the pertinent 3 Letter Code of the ISO 3166-1, then to any IGO/INGO that has requested protection in the past 5. Finally, if then string shall be an available gTLD for any qualified applicant. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter / ALS Costa Rica skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 <+506%208837%207176> ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
Estimado Carlos Raul, gracias por compartir. Ya conocía de tu larga participación, la cual agradezco. En parte coincido con Alejandro, pero apoyo esta moción. Es que por ejemplo, el .cat como el mismo dice, hasta este momento no está identificando a un país o región geográfica, no se sabe si alguna vez lo representará. Y si alguna vez sucede, será otro debate diferente al actual. Saludos cordiales Alberto Soto De: lac-discuss-es <lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> En nombre de Carlos Raul Gutierrez Enviado el: lunes, 19 de marzo de 2018 05:55 p.m. Para: LACRALO <lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Asunto: [lac-discuss-es] Fwd: Draft comment to WT-5 session during ICANN61 Traduccion cortesia de Google Estimado Liderazgo de LACRALO, Como algunos de ustedes saben, pasé casi 3 años en un CWG ccNSO-GNSO sobre el uso de nombres de países y territorios, y nos quedamos atrapados en los códigos de 3 letras de la lista ISO 3166-1. La semana pasada, durante la reunión de SubPro WT5 en PR, también nos quedamos atrapados en la misma lista y casi pierdo la esperanza de algún progreso. Pero después de las conversaciones con los miembros del WT5, incluido el representante del GAC de Suiza, los gerentes de ccTLD de Estonia y Nueva Zelanda, y el copresidente más hábil de ALA del WT5, vine con algunas ideas sobre cómo librarme de este obstáculo y Continuar haciendo progresos con una política de nombres geográficos completos para el futuro. En ese sentido, le pido amablemente sus comentarios, adiciones, correcciones y el eventual respaldo del proyecto de moción adjunto, que quiero agregar a mis comentarios en el micrófono durante esa sesión. Por supuesto, quiero enviar mis comentarios antes de la próxima convocatoria, que es la próxima semana ......... Me alegra agregar los nombres de cualquiera que apoye el movimiento BORRADOR para comentarios y expresión de apoyo Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> > Date: Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 4:51 PM Subject: Draft comment to WT-5 session during ICANN61 To: LACRALO <lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Cc: Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob@gmail.com <mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com> >, Alberto Soto <asoto@ibero-americano.org <mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org> >, "rihogris@gmail.com <mailto:rihogris@gmail.com> " <rihogris@gmail.com <mailto:rihogris@gmail.com> >, "Me on BartlettMorgan.com" <me@bartlettmorgan.com <mailto:me@bartlettmorgan.com> >, Bartlett Morgan <bartlett.morgan@gmail.com <mailto:bartlett.morgan@gmail.com> > Dear Leadership of LACRALO, As some of you know, I spent almost 3 years in a CWG ccNSO-GNSO on the use of country and territory names, and we got stuck on the 3 letter codes of the ISO 3166-1 list. Last week, during the SubPro WT5 meeting in PR, we also got stuck on that very same list and I almost lost my hope of any progress. But after talks with members of the WT5, including the Swiss GAC rep, the ccTLD managers of Estonia and New Zealand, and the most able ALAC Co-Chair of WT5, I came with some ideas on how to get rid of this stumbling block and continue making progress with a policy for full geo names for the future. In that sense I kindly ask for your comments, additions, corrections and eventual support of the draft motion attached, that I want to add to my comments on the microphone during that session. Of course, I want to submit my comments before the next call which is next week......... Glad to add the names of anyone who supports the motion DRAFT for comments and expression of support Dear WT5 Participants: We trust that all of us have returned home OK from San Juan following ICANN 61. For the record and with a view to our next conference call on 28 March, 05.00 UTC, this is just to recall some points made during the discussion on Wednesday morning, 14 March. For the Subsequent procedures PDP to go forward without delay, we need to make progress on a new geo.TLD policy for “full names” fast. Based on previous efforts (like the previous policy efforts of the ccNSO, the ccNSO-GNSO-CWG that followed, and the efforts within the GAC) it is not advisable to pursue the idea that the 2012 Applicant Guide Book (AGB) reserved list of geo.names (based on codes dependent on outside reference lists) a relevant default. That text (AGB) effectively failed to address several classes of names that are of significant interest to user communities, represents today a lacunae which gave rise to several disagreements and delays last time around (.amazon, .africa, .persiangulf). The first registered ccTLDs were <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.us> .us, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.uk> .uk, and <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.il> .il, all registered in 1985. But It has taken until today to (not) make a decision on the 3 letter alpha codes. In the meantime, other geography-related top-level domains have been successfully delegated, like is the case for the city TLDs (.Berlin, .London, .Rio, etc.) as well as some region and new countries, like .cat, .bzh and .srb. Obviously, as more exception emerge to reference codes dependent on outside reference lists there is a growing space for conflict. There remains a tremendous and growing inconsistency in the particular case with the 3-letter codes of the ISO 3166-1 list which own the last round served as the basis for another ineffective reservation. For that reason I have suggested during our meeting in ICANN61 that it is important for WT5 to eliminate the restrictions of the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list is an important step, so that an effective “full.geo.name <http://full.geo.name> ” evaluation policy, consistent with modern developments in the DNS space can be developed for subsequent rounds. Short codes/acronyms of the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list are not “Generic” in the usual ICANN sense of the DNS expansion but for few exceptions. For that reason, I submit this modest draft PROPOSAL TO DELEGATE 3 letter codes to interested Governments and other geo related public interest entities previous or during the next round. Taking the delegation of 2-letter codes to ccTLD managers as a precedent n the mid-80s, we should assume that there is demand out there for the differentiated use of 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list codes, either by Governments, public entities, communities and even some ccTLD managers themselves. So instead of the 3-letter codes of the ISO-3166-1 list remaining reserved, the WT5 should analyze the possibility of using subsequent rounds and use the proven evaluation methodology and assigning process of the last round (like in the case for city names) for the ISO list 3 letter codes. This option to delegate/register the whole 3-letter code ISO list, opens the space for other public interest parties to apply for a few IGO/IGNO specific 3 letter codes that also have been reserved (IOC, WHO, IMF) and then leaving all other 3 letter permutation outside the ISO list and IGO/INGOs open for creative applications in the generic domain space. A back of the envelope calculation will show that offering to delegate the first group and taking into account the existing 3 letter codes will amount to a total of less than 500 TLDs. That leaves more than 20’000 possible permutation open for evaluation as new gTLDs. WT5 should seriously consider a delegation process for the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list (as opposed to maintaining an incongruent reservation list) under the following assignment conditions 1. Right of First Refusal To Governments of countries/territories to THEIR 3 Letter Codes (ISO...); 2. Right of Second Refusal al ccTLD manager del país o territorio correspondiente (en PR sería Gauss/PR Top Level Domain, no el Estado Libre Asociado); 3. Right of the Third Refusal to a pertinent linguistic, ethnic, indigenous community or people as said concepts are defined by International Law; as long as they get support from the respective political entities 4. If none of the above show interest in the pertinent 3 Letter Code of the ISO 3166-1, then to any IGO/INGO that has requested protection in the past 5. Finally, if then string shall be an available gTLD for any qualified applicant. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter / ALS Costa Rica skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 <tel:+506%208837%207176> ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA --- El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Estimado Carlos Raúl, gracias por el documento. creo lo mas importante es que puede ser una llave para destrancar el juego, que como bien dices ha estado trancado por mucho tiempo. No tendría inconveniente en dar mi soporte al mismo, quería preguntarte a que nivel lo deseas. lo pregunto por que el Liason de LACRALO ante el WT5 es tu tocayo Carlos Dionisio, así que entiendo el llevaría la voz de LACRALO. Como participante del WT5 estaré pendiente en la próxima reunión para soportar la propuesta. En ALAC, no hay una posición definida, sin embargo la voz es Javier Rua, con quien de tu correo entiendo ya hablaste. El punto que creo estaría en el aire, y que en parte responde las interrogantes de Alberto y Alejandro es el de los territorios dentro de los países. Este es el caso de .amazon para varios de nuestros países. Al menos en Venezuela, el Amazonas, mas que el río o la selva, también es un estado, que representa cerca del 20% del territorio. Saludos Ricardo Holmquist 2018-03-20 13:12 GMT+01:00 Alberto Soto <asoto@ibero-americano.org>:
Estimado Carlos Raul, gracias por compartir. Ya conocía de tu larga participación, la cual agradezco.
En parte coincido con Alejandro, pero apoyo esta moción.
Es que por ejemplo, el .cat como el mismo dice, hasta este momento no está identificando a un país o región geográfica, no se sabe si alguna vez lo representará. Y si alguna vez sucede, será otro debate diferente al actual.
Saludos cordiales
Alberto Soto
*De:* lac-discuss-es <lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *En nombre de *Carlos Raul Gutierrez *Enviado el:* lunes, 19 de marzo de 2018 05:55 p.m. *Para:* LACRALO <lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Asunto:* [lac-discuss-es] Fwd: Draft comment to WT-5 session during ICANN61
Traduccion cortesia de Google
Estimado Liderazgo de LACRALO,
Como algunos de ustedes saben, pasé casi 3 años en un CWG ccNSO-GNSO sobre el uso de nombres de países y territorios, y nos quedamos atrapados en los códigos de 3 letras de la lista ISO 3166-1.
La semana pasada, durante la reunión de SubPro WT5 en PR, también nos quedamos atrapados en la misma lista y casi pierdo la esperanza de algún progreso. Pero después de las conversaciones con los miembros del WT5, incluido el representante del GAC de Suiza, los gerentes de ccTLD de Estonia y Nueva Zelanda, y el copresidente más hábil de ALA del WT5, vine con algunas ideas sobre cómo librarme de este obstáculo y Continuar haciendo progresos con una política de nombres geográficos completos para el futuro.
En ese sentido, le pido amablemente sus comentarios, adiciones, correcciones y el eventual respaldo del proyecto de moción adjunto, que quiero agregar a mis comentarios en el micrófono durante esa sesión. Por supuesto, quiero enviar mis comentarios antes de la próxima convocatoria, que es la próxima semana .........
Me alegra agregar los nombres de cualquiera que apoye el movimiento
BORRADOR para comentarios y expresión de apoyo
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 <+506%208837%207176> ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Carlos Raul Gutierrez* <crg@isoc-cr.org> Date: Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 4:51 PM Subject: Draft comment to WT-5 session during ICANN61 To: LACRALO <lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob@gmail.com>, Alberto Soto < asoto@ibero-americano.org>, "rihogris@gmail.com" <rihogris@gmail.com>, "Me on BartlettMorgan.com" <me@bartlettmorgan.com>, Bartlett Morgan < bartlett.morgan@gmail.com>
Dear Leadership of LACRALO,
As some of you know, I spent almost 3 years in a CWG ccNSO-GNSO on the use of country and territory names, and we got stuck on the 3 letter codes of the ISO 3166-1 list.
Last week, during the SubPro WT5 meeting in PR, we also got stuck on that very same list and I almost lost my hope of any progress. But after talks with members of the WT5, including the Swiss GAC rep, the ccTLD managers of Estonia and New Zealand, and the most able ALAC Co-Chair of WT5, I came with some ideas on how to get rid of this stumbling block and continue making progress with a policy for full geo names for the future.
In that sense I kindly ask for your comments, additions, corrections and eventual support of the draft motion attached, that I want to add to my comments on the microphone during that session. Of course, I want to submit my comments before the next call which is next week.........
Glad to add the names of anyone who supports the motion
DRAFT for comments and expression of support
Dear WT5 Participants:
We trust that all of us have returned home OK from San Juan following ICANN 61.
For the record and with a view to our next conference call on 28 March, 05.00 UTC, this is just to recall some points made during the discussion on Wednesday morning, 14 March.
For the Subsequent procedures PDP to go forward without delay, we need to make progress on a new geo.TLD policy for “full names” fast. Based on previous efforts (like the previous policy efforts of the ccNSO, the ccNSO-GNSO-CWG that followed, and the efforts within the GAC) it is not advisable to pursue the idea that the 2012 Applicant Guide Book (AGB) reserved list of geo.names (based on codes dependent on outside reference lists) a relevant default. That text (AGB) effectively failed to address several classes of names that are of significant interest to user communities, represents today a lacunae which gave rise to several disagreements and delays last time around (.amazon, .africa, .persiangulf).
The first registered ccTLDs were .us <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.us>, .uk <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.uk>, and .il <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.il>, all registered in 1985. But It has taken until today to (not) make a decision on the 3 letter alpha codes. In the meantime, other geography-related top-level domains have been successfully delegated, like is the case for the city TLDs (.Berlin, .London, .Rio, etc.) as well as some region and new countries, like .cat, .bzh and .srb. Obviously, as more exception emerge to reference codes dependent on outside reference lists there is a growing space for conflict. There remains a tremendous and growing inconsistency in the particular case with the 3-letter codes of the ISO 3166-1 list which own the last round served as the basis for another ineffective reservation. For that reason I have suggested during our meeting in ICANN61 that it is important for WT5 to eliminate the restrictions of the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list is an important step, so that an effective “full.geo.name” evaluation policy, consistent with modern developments in the DNS space can be developed for subsequent rounds.
Short codes/acronyms of the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list are not “Generic” in the usual ICANN sense of the DNS expansion but for few exceptions. For that reason, I submit this modest draft *PROPOSAL TO DELEGATE 3 letter codes to interested Governments and other geo related public interest entities previous or during the next round. *Taking the delegation of 2-letter codes to ccTLD managers as a precedent n the mid-80s, we should assume that there is demand out there for the differentiated use of 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list codes, either by Governments, public entities, communities and even some ccTLD managers themselves. So instead of the 3-letter codes of the ISO- 3166-1 list remaining reserved, the WT5 should analyze the possibility of using subsequent rounds and use the proven evaluation methodology and assigning process of the last round (like in the case for city names) for the ISO list 3 letter codes.
This option to delegate/register the whole 3-letter code ISO list, opens the space for other public interest parties to apply for a few IGO/IGNO specific 3 letter codes that also have been reserved (IOC, WHO, IMF) and then leaving all other 3 letter permutation outside the ISO list and IGO/INGOs open for creative applications in the generic domain space. A back of the envelope calculation will show that offering to delegate the first group and taking into account the existing 3 letter codes will amount to a total of less than 500 TLDs. That leaves more than 20’000 possible permutation open for evaluation as new gTLDs.
WT5 should seriously consider a delegation process for the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list (as opposed to maintaining an incongruent reservation list) under the following assignment conditions
1. Right of First Refusal To Governments of countries/territories to THEIR 3 Letter Codes (ISO...);
2. Right of Second Refusal al ccTLD manager del país o territorio correspondiente (en PR sería Gauss/PR Top Level Domain, no el Estado Libre Asociado);
3. Right of the Third Refusal to a pertinent linguistic, ethnic, indigenous community or people as said concepts are defined by International Law; as long as they get support from the respective political entities
4. If none of the above show interest in the pertinent 3 Letter Code of the ISO 3166-1, then to any IGO/INGO that has requested protection in the past
5. Finally, if then string shall be an available gTLD for any qualified applicant.
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter / ALS Costa Rica skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 <+506%208837%207176> ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...> Libre de virus. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...> <#m_8325335830230638168_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
Muchas Gracias por el trabajo de años Carlos G. Desde nuestra modesta posición apoyamos la moción y nos alegramos de que pueda visualizarse alguna manera de destrancar el tema. Ha sido discutido desde hace años también sin ningún resultado en largas sesiones.. Respecto al punto amazon que tiene larga discusión también tal vez podría encontrarse una solución transaccional que pudiera aportar algún beneficio para pobladores de esa zona..a veces lo ideal puede ser enemigo de lo bueno.. Saludos a todos 2018-03-20 10:51 GMT-03:00 Ricardo Holmquist <rihogris@gmail.com>:
Estimado Carlos Raúl, gracias por el documento. creo lo mas importante es que puede ser una llave para destrancar el juego, que como bien dices ha estado trancado por mucho tiempo. No tendría inconveniente en dar mi soporte al mismo, quería preguntarte a que nivel lo deseas. lo pregunto por que el Liason de LACRALO ante el WT5 es tu tocayo Carlos Dionisio, así que entiendo el llevaría la voz de LACRALO. Como participante del WT5 estaré pendiente en la próxima reunión para soportar la propuesta. En ALAC, no hay una posición definida, sin embargo la voz es Javier Rua, con quien de tu correo entiendo ya hablaste.
El punto que creo estaría en el aire, y que en parte responde las interrogantes de Alberto y Alejandro es el de los territorios dentro de los países. Este es el caso de .amazon para varios de nuestros países. Al menos en Venezuela, el Amazonas, mas que el río o la selva, también es un estado, que representa cerca del 20% del territorio.
Saludos
Ricardo Holmquist
2018-03-20 13:12 GMT+01:00 Alberto Soto <asoto@ibero-americano.org>:
Estimado Carlos Raul, gracias por compartir. Ya conocía de tu larga participación, la cual agradezco.
En parte coincido con Alejandro, pero apoyo esta moción.
Es que por ejemplo, el .cat como el mismo dice, hasta este momento no está identificando a un país o región geográfica, no se sabe si alguna vez lo representará. Y si alguna vez sucede, será otro debate diferente al actual.
Saludos cordiales
Alberto Soto
*De:* lac-discuss-es <lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *En nombre de *Carlos Raul Gutierrez *Enviado el:* lunes, 19 de marzo de 2018 05:55 p.m. *Para:* LACRALO <lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Asunto:* [lac-discuss-es] Fwd: Draft comment to WT-5 session during ICANN61
Traduccion cortesia de Google
Estimado Liderazgo de LACRALO,
Como algunos de ustedes saben, pasé casi 3 años en un CWG ccNSO-GNSO sobre el uso de nombres de países y territorios, y nos quedamos atrapados en los códigos de 3 letras de la lista ISO 3166-1.
La semana pasada, durante la reunión de SubPro WT5 en PR, también nos quedamos atrapados en la misma lista y casi pierdo la esperanza de algún progreso. Pero después de las conversaciones con los miembros del WT5, incluido el representante del GAC de Suiza, los gerentes de ccTLD de Estonia y Nueva Zelanda, y el copresidente más hábil de ALA del WT5, vine con algunas ideas sobre cómo librarme de este obstáculo y Continuar haciendo progresos con una política de nombres geográficos completos para el futuro.
En ese sentido, le pido amablemente sus comentarios, adiciones, correcciones y el eventual respaldo del proyecto de moción adjunto, que quiero agregar a mis comentarios en el micrófono durante esa sesión. Por supuesto, quiero enviar mis comentarios antes de la próxima convocatoria, que es la próxima semana .........
Me alegra agregar los nombres de cualquiera que apoye el movimiento
BORRADOR para comentarios y expresión de apoyo
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 <+506%208837%207176> ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Carlos Raul Gutierrez* <crg@isoc-cr.org> Date: Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 4:51 PM Subject: Draft comment to WT-5 session during ICANN61 To: LACRALO <lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob@gmail.com>, Alberto Soto < asoto@ibero-americano.org>, "rihogris@gmail.com" <rihogris@gmail.com>, "Me on BartlettMorgan.com" <me@bartlettmorgan.com>, Bartlett Morgan < bartlett.morgan@gmail.com>
Dear Leadership of LACRALO,
As some of you know, I spent almost 3 years in a CWG ccNSO-GNSO on the use of country and territory names, and we got stuck on the 3 letter codes of the ISO 3166-1 list.
Last week, during the SubPro WT5 meeting in PR, we also got stuck on that very same list and I almost lost my hope of any progress. But after talks with members of the WT5, including the Swiss GAC rep, the ccTLD managers of Estonia and New Zealand, and the most able ALAC Co-Chair of WT5, I came with some ideas on how to get rid of this stumbling block and continue making progress with a policy for full geo names for the future.
In that sense I kindly ask for your comments, additions, corrections and eventual support of the draft motion attached, that I want to add to my comments on the microphone during that session. Of course, I want to submit my comments before the next call which is next week.........
Glad to add the names of anyone who supports the motion
DRAFT for comments and expression of support
Dear WT5 Participants:
We trust that all of us have returned home OK from San Juan following ICANN 61.
For the record and with a view to our next conference call on 28 March, 05.00 UTC, this is just to recall some points made during the discussion on Wednesday morning, 14 March.
For the Subsequent procedures PDP to go forward without delay, we need to make progress on a new geo.TLD policy for “full names” fast. Based on previous efforts (like the previous policy efforts of the ccNSO, the ccNSO-GNSO-CWG that followed, and the efforts within the GAC) it is not advisable to pursue the idea that the 2012 Applicant Guide Book (AGB) reserved list of geo.names (based on codes dependent on outside reference lists) a relevant default. That text (AGB) effectively failed to address several classes of names that are of significant interest to user communities, represents today a lacunae which gave rise to several disagreements and delays last time around (.amazon, .africa, .persiangulf).
The first registered ccTLDs were .us <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.us> , .uk <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.uk>, and .il <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.il>, all registered in 1985. But It has taken until today to (not) make a decision on the 3 letter alpha codes. In the meantime, other geography-related top-level domains have been successfully delegated, like is the case for the city TLDs (.Berlin, .London, .Rio, etc.) as well as some region and new countries, like .cat, .bzh and .srb. Obviously, as more exception emerge to reference codes dependent on outside reference lists there is a growing space for conflict. There remains a tremendous and growing inconsistency in the particular case with the 3-letter codes of the ISO 3166-1 list which own the last round served as the basis for another ineffective reservation. For that reason I have suggested during our meeting in ICANN61 that it is important for WT5 to eliminate the restrictions of the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list is an important step, so that an effective “full.geo.name” evaluation policy, consistent with modern developments in the DNS space can be developed for subsequent rounds.
Short codes/acronyms of the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list are not “Generic” in the usual ICANN sense of the DNS expansion but for few exceptions. For that reason, I submit this modest draft *PROPOSAL TO DELEGATE 3 letter codes to interested Governments and other geo related public interest entities previous or during the next round. *Taking the delegation of 2-letter codes to ccTLD managers as a precedent n the mid-80s, we should assume that there is demand out there for the differentiated use of 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list codes, either by Governments, public entities, communities and even some ccTLD managers themselves. So instead of the 3-letter codes of the ISO- 3166-1 list remaining reserved, the WT5 should analyze the possibility of using subsequent rounds and use the proven evaluation methodology and assigning process of the last round (like in the case for city names) for the ISO list 3 letter codes.
This option to delegate/register the whole 3-letter code ISO list, opens the space for other public interest parties to apply for a few IGO/IGNO specific 3 letter codes that also have been reserved (IOC, WHO, IMF) and then leaving all other 3 letter permutation outside the ISO list and IGO/INGOs open for creative applications in the generic domain space. A back of the envelope calculation will show that offering to delegate the first group and taking into account the existing 3 letter codes will amount to a total of less than 500 TLDs. That leaves more than 20’000 possible permutation open for evaluation as new gTLDs.
WT5 should seriously consider a delegation process for the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list (as opposed to maintaining an incongruent reservation list) under the following assignment conditions
1. Right of First Refusal To Governments of countries/territories to THEIR 3 Letter Codes (ISO...);
2. Right of Second Refusal al ccTLD manager del país o territorio correspondiente (en PR sería Gauss/PR Top Level Domain, no el Estado Libre Asociado);
3. Right of the Third Refusal to a pertinent linguistic, ethnic, indigenous community or people as said concepts are defined by International Law; as long as they get support from the respective political entities
4. If none of the above show interest in the pertinent 3 Letter Code of the ISO 3166-1, then to any IGO/INGO that has requested protection in the past
5. Finally, if then string shall be an available gTLD for any qualified applicant.
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter / ALS Costa Rica skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 <+506%208837%207176> ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...> Libre de virus. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...> <#m_-3813600145558183298_m_8325335830230638168_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
-- Aida Noblia
Muchas Gracias por el trabajo de años Carlos G. Desde nuestra modesta posición apoyamos la moción y nos alegramos de que pueda visualizarse alguna manera de destrancar el tema. Ha sido discutido desde hace años también sin ningún resultado en largas sesiones.. Respecto al punto amazon que tiene larga discusión también tal vez podría encontrarse una solución transaccional que pudiera aportar algún beneficio para pobladores de esa zona..a veces lo ideal puede ser enemigo de lo bueno.. Saludos a todos 2018-03-20 10:51 GMT-03:00 Ricardo Holmquist <rihogris@gmail.com>:
Estimado Carlos Raúl, gracias por el documento. creo lo mas importante es que puede ser una llave para destrancar el juego, que como bien dices ha estado trancado por mucho tiempo. No tendría inconveniente en dar mi soporte al mismo, quería preguntarte a que nivel lo deseas. lo pregunto por que el Liason de LACRALO ante el WT5 es tu tocayo Carlos Dionisio, así que entiendo el llevaría la voz de LACRALO. Como participante del WT5 estaré pendiente en la próxima reunión para soportar la propuesta. En ALAC, no hay una posición definida, sin embargo la voz es Javier Rua, con quien de tu correo entiendo ya hablaste.
El punto que creo estaría en el aire, y que en parte responde las interrogantes de Alberto y Alejandro es el de los territorios dentro de los países. Este es el caso de .amazon para varios de nuestros países. Al menos en Venezuela, el Amazonas, mas que el río o la selva, también es un estado, que representa cerca del 20% del territorio.
Saludos
Ricardo Holmquist
2018-03-20 13:12 GMT+01:00 Alberto Soto <asoto@ibero-americano.org>:
Estimado Carlos Raul, gracias por compartir. Ya conocía de tu larga participación, la cual agradezco.
En parte coincido con Alejandro, pero apoyo esta moción.
Es que por ejemplo, el .cat como el mismo dice, hasta este momento no está identificando a un país o región geográfica, no se sabe si alguna vez lo representará. Y si alguna vez sucede, será otro debate diferente al actual.
Saludos cordiales
Alberto Soto
*De:* lac-discuss-es <lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *En nombre de *Carlos Raul Gutierrez *Enviado el:* lunes, 19 de marzo de 2018 05:55 p.m. *Para:* LACRALO <lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Asunto:* [lac-discuss-es] Fwd: Draft comment to WT-5 session during ICANN61
Traduccion cortesia de Google
Estimado Liderazgo de LACRALO,
Como algunos de ustedes saben, pasé casi 3 años en un CWG ccNSO-GNSO sobre el uso de nombres de países y territorios, y nos quedamos atrapados en los códigos de 3 letras de la lista ISO 3166-1.
La semana pasada, durante la reunión de SubPro WT5 en PR, también nos quedamos atrapados en la misma lista y casi pierdo la esperanza de algún progreso. Pero después de las conversaciones con los miembros del WT5, incluido el representante del GAC de Suiza, los gerentes de ccTLD de Estonia y Nueva Zelanda, y el copresidente más hábil de ALA del WT5, vine con algunas ideas sobre cómo librarme de este obstáculo y Continuar haciendo progresos con una política de nombres geográficos completos para el futuro.
En ese sentido, le pido amablemente sus comentarios, adiciones, correcciones y el eventual respaldo del proyecto de moción adjunto, que quiero agregar a mis comentarios en el micrófono durante esa sesión. Por supuesto, quiero enviar mis comentarios antes de la próxima convocatoria, que es la próxima semana .........
Me alegra agregar los nombres de cualquiera que apoye el movimiento
BORRADOR para comentarios y expresión de apoyo
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 <+506%208837%207176> ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Carlos Raul Gutierrez* <crg@isoc-cr.org> Date: Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 4:51 PM Subject: Draft comment to WT-5 session during ICANN61 To: LACRALO <lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob@gmail.com>, Alberto Soto < asoto@ibero-americano.org>, "rihogris@gmail.com" <rihogris@gmail.com>, "Me on BartlettMorgan.com" <me@bartlettmorgan.com>, Bartlett Morgan < bartlett.morgan@gmail.com>
Dear Leadership of LACRALO,
As some of you know, I spent almost 3 years in a CWG ccNSO-GNSO on the use of country and territory names, and we got stuck on the 3 letter codes of the ISO 3166-1 list.
Last week, during the SubPro WT5 meeting in PR, we also got stuck on that very same list and I almost lost my hope of any progress. But after talks with members of the WT5, including the Swiss GAC rep, the ccTLD managers of Estonia and New Zealand, and the most able ALAC Co-Chair of WT5, I came with some ideas on how to get rid of this stumbling block and continue making progress with a policy for full geo names for the future.
In that sense I kindly ask for your comments, additions, corrections and eventual support of the draft motion attached, that I want to add to my comments on the microphone during that session. Of course, I want to submit my comments before the next call which is next week.........
Glad to add the names of anyone who supports the motion
DRAFT for comments and expression of support
Dear WT5 Participants:
We trust that all of us have returned home OK from San Juan following ICANN 61.
For the record and with a view to our next conference call on 28 March, 05.00 UTC, this is just to recall some points made during the discussion on Wednesday morning, 14 March.
For the Subsequent procedures PDP to go forward without delay, we need to make progress on a new geo.TLD policy for “full names” fast. Based on previous efforts (like the previous policy efforts of the ccNSO, the ccNSO-GNSO-CWG that followed, and the efforts within the GAC) it is not advisable to pursue the idea that the 2012 Applicant Guide Book (AGB) reserved list of geo.names (based on codes dependent on outside reference lists) a relevant default. That text (AGB) effectively failed to address several classes of names that are of significant interest to user communities, represents today a lacunae which gave rise to several disagreements and delays last time around (.amazon, .africa, .persiangulf).
The first registered ccTLDs were .us <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.us> , .uk <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.uk>, and .il <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.il>, all registered in 1985. But It has taken until today to (not) make a decision on the 3 letter alpha codes. In the meantime, other geography-related top-level domains have been successfully delegated, like is the case for the city TLDs (.Berlin, .London, .Rio, etc.) as well as some region and new countries, like .cat, .bzh and .srb. Obviously, as more exception emerge to reference codes dependent on outside reference lists there is a growing space for conflict. There remains a tremendous and growing inconsistency in the particular case with the 3-letter codes of the ISO 3166-1 list which own the last round served as the basis for another ineffective reservation. For that reason I have suggested during our meeting in ICANN61 that it is important for WT5 to eliminate the restrictions of the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list is an important step, so that an effective “full.geo.name” evaluation policy, consistent with modern developments in the DNS space can be developed for subsequent rounds.
Short codes/acronyms of the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list are not “Generic” in the usual ICANN sense of the DNS expansion but for few exceptions. For that reason, I submit this modest draft *PROPOSAL TO DELEGATE 3 letter codes to interested Governments and other geo related public interest entities previous or during the next round. *Taking the delegation of 2-letter codes to ccTLD managers as a precedent n the mid-80s, we should assume that there is demand out there for the differentiated use of 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list codes, either by Governments, public entities, communities and even some ccTLD managers themselves. So instead of the 3-letter codes of the ISO- 3166-1 list remaining reserved, the WT5 should analyze the possibility of using subsequent rounds and use the proven evaluation methodology and assigning process of the last round (like in the case for city names) for the ISO list 3 letter codes.
This option to delegate/register the whole 3-letter code ISO list, opens the space for other public interest parties to apply for a few IGO/IGNO specific 3 letter codes that also have been reserved (IOC, WHO, IMF) and then leaving all other 3 letter permutation outside the ISO list and IGO/INGOs open for creative applications in the generic domain space. A back of the envelope calculation will show that offering to delegate the first group and taking into account the existing 3 letter codes will amount to a total of less than 500 TLDs. That leaves more than 20’000 possible permutation open for evaluation as new gTLDs.
WT5 should seriously consider a delegation process for the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list (as opposed to maintaining an incongruent reservation list) under the following assignment conditions
1. Right of First Refusal To Governments of countries/territories to THEIR 3 Letter Codes (ISO...);
2. Right of Second Refusal al ccTLD manager del país o territorio correspondiente (en PR sería Gauss/PR Top Level Domain, no el Estado Libre Asociado);
3. Right of the Third Refusal to a pertinent linguistic, ethnic, indigenous community or people as said concepts are defined by International Law; as long as they get support from the respective political entities
4. If none of the above show interest in the pertinent 3 Letter Code of the ISO 3166-1, then to any IGO/INGO that has requested protection in the past
5. Finally, if then string shall be an available gTLD for any qualified applicant.
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter / ALS Costa Rica skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 <+506%208837%207176> ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...> Libre de virus. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...> <#m_6128923933570959349_m_8325335830230638168_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
-- Aida Noblia
Carlos Raul, thank you very much for sending out this message and for your prolonged engagement in this thorny issue. Further, my recognition for bringing it to the community. I am inclined to support the motion as it stands but would find it very helpful if you explained how the WT5 group plans to deal with the following: it is possible that in the coming few years some national entities will emerge, with a rightful claim for a country name and therefore for 2- and 3-letter ISO 3166 entries. One that comes to mind is a national entitiy for the Kurdish people. One can also speculate about the future of Catalonia and there, a correction stands to WT5: .cat was *never* granted on a geographic, territorial basis, but on a cultural one, spanning the Catalan language and cultural community worldwide. So coming back to the main point: such an entity as above would be figthing against all governments in the territories where its people now live and would therefor find objections from at least points 1-3 of your list (since Third Refusal by ethnic, indigenous communities or people would manage to be defined by International Law but would most likely face strong resistanc, tehrefor not get support, from the "respective political entities." Similar cases have been conceivable in Latin America and the Caribbean even in the recent past. Any Caribbean territrory that today is dependent on another power (like the TOMs/DOMs) and became independent could be in a similar situation. So we *are¨* thinking of the region and its citizens-users. If this has been discussed - as would be my estimate - I would thank you for an answer or a pointer to the discussion. I am writing this message in English in the -es list since yours was in this same language and list. I hope it does not mess the translation system too badly. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@isoc-cr.org> wrote:
Dear Leadership of LACRALO,
As some of you know, I spent almost 3 years in a CWG ccNSO-GNSO on the use of country and territory names, and we got stuck on the 3 letter codes of the ISO 3166-1 list.
Last week, during the SubPro WT5 meeting in PR, we also got stuck on that very same list and I almost lost my hope of any progress. But after talks with members of the WT5, including the Swiss GAC rep, the ccTLD managers of Estonia and New Zealand, and the most able ALAC Co-Chair of WT5, I came with some ideas on how to get rid of this stumbling block and continue making progress with a policy for full geo names for the future.
In that sense I kindly ask for your comments, additions, corrections and eventual support of the draft motion attached, that I want to add to my comments on the microphone during that session. Of course, I want to submit my comments before the next call which is next week.........
Glad to add the names of anyone who supports the motion
DRAFT for comments and expression of support
Dear WT5 Participants:
We trust that all of us have returned home OK from San Juan following ICANN 61.
For the record and with a view to our next conference call on 28 March, 05.00 UTC, this is just to recall some points made during the discussion on Wednesday morning, 14 March.
For the Subsequent procedures PDP to go forward without delay, we need to make progress on a new geo.TLD policy for “full names” fast. Based on previous efforts (like the previous policy efforts of the ccNSO, the ccNSO-GNSO-CWG that followed, and the efforts within the GAC) it is not advisable to pursue the idea that the 2012 Applicant Guide Book (AGB) reserved list of geo.names (based on codes dependent on outside reference lists) a relevant default. That text (AGB) effectively failed to address several classes of names that are of significant interest to user communities, represents today a lacunae which gave rise to several disagreements and delays last time around (.amazon, .africa, .persiangulf).
The first registered ccTLDs were .us <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.us>, .uk <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.uk>, and .il <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.il>, all registered in 1985. But It has taken until today to (not) make a decision on the 3 letter alpha codes. In the meantime, other geography-related top-level domains have been successfully delegated, like is the case for the city TLDs (.Berlin, .London, .Rio, etc.) as well as some region and new countries, like .cat, .bzh and .srb. Obviously, as more exception emerge to reference codes dependent on outside reference lists there is a growing space for conflict. There remains a tremendous and growing inconsistency in the particular case with the 3-letter codes of the ISO 3166-1 list which own the last round served as the basis for another ineffective reservation. For that reason I have suggested during our meeting in ICANN61 that it is important for WT5 to eliminate the restrictions of the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list is an important step, so that an effective “full.geo.name” evaluation policy, consistent with modern developments in the DNS space can be developed for subsequent rounds.
Short codes/acronyms of the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list are not “Generic” in the usual ICANN sense of the DNS expansion but for few exceptions. For that reason, I submit this modest draft PROPOSAL TO DELEGATE 3 letter codes to interested Governments and other geo related public interest entities previous or during the next round. Taking the delegation of 2-letter codes to ccTLD managers as a precedent n the mid-80s, we should assume that there is demand out there for the differentiated use of 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list codes, either by Governments, public entities, communities and even some ccTLD managers themselves. So instead of the 3-letter codes of the ISO- 3166-1 list remaining reserved, the WT5 should analyze the possibility of using subsequent rounds and use the proven evaluation methodology and assigning process of the last round (like in the case for city names) for the ISO list 3 letter codes.
This option to delegate/register the whole 3-letter code ISO list, opens the space for other public interest parties to apply for a few IGO/IGNO specific 3 letter codes that also have been reserved (IOC, WHO, IMF) and then leaving all other 3 letter permutation outside the ISO list and IGO/INGOs open for creative applications in the generic domain space. A back of the envelope calculation will show that offering to delegate the first group and taking into account the existing 3 letter codes will amount to a total of less than 500 TLDs. That leaves more than 20’000 possible permutation open for evaluation as new gTLDs.
WT5 should seriously consider a delegation process for the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list (as opposed to maintaining an incongruent reservation list) under the following assignment conditions
1. Right of First Refusal To Governments of countries/territories to THEIR 3 Letter Codes (ISO...);
2. Right of Second Refusal al ccTLD manager del país o territorio correspondiente (en PR sería Gauss/PR Top Level Domain, no el Estado Libre Asociado);
3. Right of the Third Refusal to a pertinent linguistic, ethnic, indigenous community or people as said concepts are defined by International Law; as long as they get support from the respective political entities
4. If none of the above show interest in the pertinent 3 Letter Code of the ISO 3166-1, then to any IGO/INGO that has requested protection in the past
5. Finally, if then string shall be an available gTLD for any qualified applicant.
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter / ALS Costa Rica skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gracias a todos po sus comentarios! Hay dos vias para avanzar - la inicial es añadirlo como comentario (revisado) a mi intervención en el microfono en San Juan, antes de la proxima llamada del WT5 que creo que es la semana entrante - la segunda es a traves de LACRALO (a mucha honra), dejandolo abierto a mas comentarios de los demas RALOs En todo caso voy a revisarlo en vista a los comentarios recibidos y vuelo a circularlo mañana. Definitivametne tenemos dos parametros importantes a cosdierar despues de la ultima ronda: el gran éxito de las ciudades grandes (por un principio de subsidiariadad de estar sujetos a las autoridades locales nada mas) y los malisimos resultados de comunidades que NO están basadas en geografía (.sport .gay). Creo que debemos ser cuidadososo, aprender de estas lecciones y hacer una definición muy detallada del proposito. Que tenga un feliz día! Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@isoc-cr.org> wrote:
Dear Leadership of LACRALO,
As some of you know, I spent almost 3 years in a CWG ccNSO-GNSO on the use of country and territory names, and we got stuck on the 3 letter codes of the ISO 3166-1 list.
Last week, during the SubPro WT5 meeting in PR, we also got stuck on that very same list and I almost lost my hope of any progress. But after talks with members of the WT5, including the Swiss GAC rep, the ccTLD managers of Estonia and New Zealand, and the most able ALAC Co-Chair of WT5, I came with some ideas on how to get rid of this stumbling block and continue making progress with a policy for full geo names for the future.
In that sense I kindly ask for your comments, additions, corrections and eventual support of the draft motion attached, that I want to add to my comments on the microphone during that session. Of course, I want to submit my comments before the next call which is next week.........
Glad to add the names of anyone who supports the motion
DRAFT for comments and expression of support
Dear WT5 Participants:
We trust that all of us have returned home OK from San Juan following ICANN 61.
For the record and with a view to our next conference call on 28 March, 05.00 UTC, this is just to recall some points made during the discussion on Wednesday morning, 14 March.
For the Subsequent procedures PDP to go forward without delay, we need to make progress on a new geo.TLD policy for “full names” fast. Based on previous efforts (like the previous policy efforts of the ccNSO, the ccNSO-GNSO-CWG that followed, and the efforts within the GAC) it is not advisable to pursue the idea that the 2012 Applicant Guide Book (AGB) reserved list of geo.names (based on codes dependent on outside reference lists) a relevant default. That text (AGB) effectively failed to address several classes of names that are of significant interest to user communities, represents today a lacunae which gave rise to several disagreements and delays last time around (.amazon, .africa, .persiangulf).
The first registered ccTLDs were .us <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.us>, .uk <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.uk>, and .il <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.il>, all registered in 1985. But It has taken until today to (not) make a decision on the 3 letter alpha codes. In the meantime, other geography-related top-level domains have been successfully delegated, like is the case for the city TLDs (.Berlin, .London, .Rio, etc.) as well as some region and new countries, like .cat, .bzh and .srb. Obviously, as more exception emerge to reference codes dependent on outside reference lists there is a growing space for conflict. There remains a tremendous and growing inconsistency in the particular case with the 3-letter codes of the ISO 3166-1 list which own the last round served as the basis for another ineffective reservation. For that reason I have suggested during our meeting in ICANN61 that it is important for WT5 to eliminate the restrictions of the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list is an important step, so that an effective “full.geo.name” evaluation policy, consistent with modern developments in the DNS space can be developed for subsequent rounds.
Short codes/acronyms of the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list are not “Generic” in the usual ICANN sense of the DNS expansion but for few exceptions. For that reason, I submit this modest draft PROPOSAL TO DELEGATE 3 letter codes to interested Governments and other geo related public interest entities previous or during the next round. Taking the delegation of 2-letter codes to ccTLD managers as a precedent n the mid-80s, we should assume that there is demand out there for the differentiated use of 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list codes, either by Governments, public entities, communities and even some ccTLD managers themselves. So instead of the 3-letter codes of the ISO- 3166-1 list remaining reserved, the WT5 should analyze the possibility of using subsequent rounds and use the proven evaluation methodology and assigning process of the last round (like in the case for city names) for the ISO list 3 letter codes.
This option to delegate/register the whole 3-letter code ISO list, opens the space for other public interest parties to apply for a few IGO/IGNO specific 3 letter codes that also have been reserved (IOC, WHO, IMF) and then leaving all other 3 letter permutation outside the ISO list and IGO/INGOs open for creative applications in the generic domain space. A back of the envelope calculation will show that offering to delegate the first group and taking into account the existing 3 letter codes will amount to a total of less than 500 TLDs. That leaves more than 20’000 possible permutation open for evaluation as new gTLDs.
WT5 should seriously consider a delegation process for the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list (as opposed to maintaining an incongruent reservation list) under the following assignment conditions
1. Right of First Refusal To Governments of countries/territories to THEIR 3 Letter Codes (ISO...);
2. Right of Second Refusal al ccTLD manager del país o territorio correspondiente (en PR sería Gauss/PR Top Level Domain, no el Estado Libre Asociado);
3. Right of the Third Refusal to a pertinent linguistic, ethnic, indigenous community or people as said concepts are defined by International Law; as long as they get support from the respective political entities
4. If none of the above show interest in the pertinent 3 Letter Code of the ISO 3166-1, then to any IGO/INGO that has requested protection in the past
5. Finally, if then string shall be an available gTLD for any qualified applicant.
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter / ALS Costa Rica skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 <+506%208837%207176> ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
participants (5)
-
Aida Noblia -
Alberto Soto -
Alejandro Pisanty -
Carlos Raul Gutierrez -
Ricardo Holmquist