[APAC-Discuss] Fwd: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Message to RALO liaisons to WT5

Satish Babu sb at inapp.com
Fri Aug 10 03:48:59 UTC 2018


Dear APRALO Community,

You would be aware of the activity of Work Track 5 of the New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures PDP, which deals with issues around Georgraphic Names
at the Top Level, such as the protections to be provided for capital and
non-capital city names, relevant public authorities & agencies, or intended
use of strings (Please see the WT5 workshpace here:
https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+5%3A+
Geographic+Names+at+the+Top-Level).

Since this issue may be of broad interest to end-users and end-user
communities, ALAC has asked CPWG to garner inputs from the wider At-Large
community on draft recommendations of the WT5. I'm providing two emails in
the mail trail below:

   1. The original message from Yrjö Lansipuro, who's ALAC's Liaison to the
   GAC, on the need for At-Large inputs to WT5 at this time
   2. The message from a senior ICANN community member, Greg Shatan, on the
   draft recommendations proposed by WT5 and his personal comments on each
   (provided here as an example...our own positions may be very different).


I call upon the APRALO Community to provide your positions on these draft
recommendations and also any other related comments. If you need more
clarity on these issues, please join the next CPWG Call scheduled for 13:00
UTC on 15 Aug 2018 next week (pls confirm the date/time from the CPWG
workspace). We have time until 23:59 UTC on 14 Aug for comments, so that we
can consolidate our inputs into a single document and pass it on to the
CPWG.

With kind regards,








satish




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanisoc at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 7:11 AM
Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Message to RALO liaisons to WT5
To: maureen.hilyard at gmail.com
Cc: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com, cpwg at icann.org, alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca,
ali at hussein.me.ke


Maureen,

Here are my reactions to the first set of proposed recommendations
discussed today in WT5.  As you can see I support, most -- but not all --
of the current proposed recommendations.  Perhaps we can use this as a
jumping-off point in some fashion.

*PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS*

*G. SHATAN RESPONSE*

*RECOMMENDATION #1:*



All two-character letter-letter ASCII combinations for existing and future
country codes.

I am willing to support this recommendation, in order to preserve the
unique character of 2-character letter-letter ASCII codes as ccTLDs.

This should not extend to any two-character codes involving numbers or
non-ASCII characters.  First, these are not within our remit (see WT2).
Second, they do not share the unique character that letter-letter codes
have.

*RECOMMENDATION #2:*



Reserved and unavailable for delegation:

   - alpha-3 code listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard.

I do not support this recommendation as written.  There is no history of
alpha-3 codes being used as country identifiers in the top level domain
name space.  In many cases, the alpha-3 codes do not have a special
connection to the country listed, other than its use in the alpha-3 list.
Furthermore, at least 49 alpha 3 codes have other substantial meanings: as
words in English or another language, as  an abbreviation with a commonly
understood meaning (e.g., BRB), are already in use (COM) or could be
confusing if used geographically (e.g., NIC).

*RECOMMENDATION #3:*



Reserved and unavailable for delegation:

   - Long-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard in the official
   language(s) of the country and the official UN languages.

I am willing to support this recommendation for long-form names in the
official language(s) of the country and the official UN languages.  I would
not support a recommendation to reserve long form names in all languages.

*RECOMMENDATION #4:*



Reserved and unavailable for delegation:

   - Short-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard in the official
   languages of the country and the official UN languages.

Same as Recommendation 3.

*RECOMMENDATION #5:*



Reserved and unavailable for delegation:

   - Short- or long-form name associated with a code that has been
   designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency.

This needs to be clarified, and the list of names provided to the group.
If these are country or territory names, they should already be covered in
3 and 4.  If these are not country or territory names, they should be
reviewed and discussed as a group (if possible) or on a case-by-case basis.

*RECOMMENDATION #6:*



A country and territory name which is reserved and unavailable for
delegation:

   - separable component of a country name designated on the “Separable
   Country Names List.” This list is included as an appendix to the 2012
   Applicant Guidebook.
   - The Work Track recommends narrowing reserved names to official
   languages of the country and the official UN languages.

This involves (i) country names comprised of multiple compounded parts
(e.g., Bosnia and Herzegovina) and (ii) Countries commonly known by a
smaller constituent part than the short-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1
standard (e.g., (Netherlands) Antilles).



I am willing to support this, consistent with my view on 3 and 4 above.

*RECOMME**NDATION #7**:*



Reserved and unavailable for delegation:

   - 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.”

Permutations should apply only to long and short form country and territory
names and NOT to alpha 2 or alpha 3 letter codes.



I am willing to support permutations for long and short country names and
the separable components (i.e., 3, 4 and 6 above).



I do not support permutations for alpha 2 or 3 letter codes.

*RECOMMENDATION #8:*



Reserved and unavailable for delegation:

   - 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.

Needs further review.

Do we have examples where this was invoked, or any other examples?


Greg



>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:57 AM, Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Dear fellow RALO WT5 liaisons,
> >
> >
> >
> > An action item from the ALAC call 24 April asks me to take the initiative
> > to develop a common ALAC position on geographic names in the subsequent
> > gTLD procedures. During  that call,  Alan suggested that this effort
> > could involve the five RALO liaisons to the WT5 and other interested
> > people, and mentioned also CPWG.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have not acted so far on this AI, because in my view, our only
> > meaningful contribution to the WT5 process would be to suggest
> compromises
> > to its most difficult issues, including  names of non-capital cities,
> > which WT5 has spent most of its time on, mostly engaged in a  fruitless
> > dispute between the extremes.  The atmosphere so far might not have been
> > conducive for discussing compromise proposals...
> >
> >
> >
> > However,  at ICANN62, there finally was a push by co-chairs for “meeting
> > in the middle”, especially concerning non-capital cities, and for
> "seeking
> > convergence on principles." See slides of the 28 June session:
> > https://static.ptbl.co/static/attachments/179943/1530207670.
> > pdf?1530207670
> > <https://static.ptbl.co/static/attachments/179943/1530207670
> .pdf?1530207670>
> >
> >
> >
> > Now might be the time for an ALAC contribution along the lines that Alan
> > has often repeated: there should be no big winners and big losers in the
> WT
> > 5.  In others words, a compromise, something in the middle.
> >
> >
> >
> > That’s why I’m asking for your thoughts, ideas and suggestions on how we
> > could facilitate finding compromises in the WT5, especially on the issue
> of
> > non-capital cities. This is late in the day in the life of WT5, so please
> > react soon. After an email exchange, we could ask the staff to arrange a
> > call, if necessary.  I’m also asking CPWG to take note of this effort,
> the
> > results of which I hope could be presented to CPWG soon.
> >
> >
> > Yrjö
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> _______________________________________________
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>
> Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/di
> splay/atlarge/New+GTLDs


_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/apac-discuss/attachments/20180810/2b100540/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the APAC-Discuss mailing list