[lac-discuss-en] = utf-8 Los_informes_de_la_GTC_sobre_el_uso_de q = q = utf-8 _nombres_de_pa = C3 = ADses_y_Territorio_como_dominios_de_pr = = utf-8 imer_nivel q =????????????

Fri Oct 28 09:21:51 UTC 2016

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]

 Subject: Re: = utf-8 Los_informes_de_la_GTC_sobre_el_uso_de q = q = utf-8 _nombres_de_pa = C3 = ADses_y_Territorio_como_dominios_de_pr = = utf-8 imer_nivel q =???????????? 
 Desde: aidanoblia at gmail.com

 Raul Thank you for your clarification, which is very important, since 
 refers to the relevance of our opinions, which then no 
 They correspond, but be that they inform the relevant bodies. 

 At this point we have no opinion about it, but it is true that the issue 
 has that level of discussion and that the GAC at the June meeting 
 past, what was discussed is about the expression of will in 
 particularly the value of silence representative of a country, which is 
 considered that had no meaning no, not the focus of our 
 concern.

 On the other hand, the statement does not close LACTLD only the rejection of the 
 solution regarding 2-letter codes but at what point 3 
 arises is that the wording of the document clarified and specified 
 clearly that the offer by the Registry within 30 days is performed 
 both the Government and the relevant ccTLD Administrator and not to 
 any of them or just one. 

 This observation relates to the seemingly obscure wording in the 
 initial document, and in that sense it is accepting that solution 
 accept these codes similar to the country 2-letter code, with levels 
 greater control than the rest and is observing only a matter of 
 writing, which could be taken into account if they choose the 
 agencies to resolve this issue. 

 Kind Regards 
 Aida Noblia 

 https://www.lactld.org/news/comentarios-de-lactld-sobre-etiquetas-ascii-de-2-caracteres/ 

 On October 27, 2016, 23:46, Carlos Raul Gutierrez G. <crg at isoc-cr.org>
 wrote:

> Gracias Aida por tus excelentes aclaraciones.
> Mi posiciÃ³n es que los ccTLD mangers tienen su propio grupo en ICANN, a
> travÃ©s del ccNSO. Yo estoy de acuerdo que el ccNSO es la fuente principal
> de desarrollo de polÃtica para los temas de referencia, tanto al primer
> como al segundo nivel. Con todo respeto no considero apropiado que sea ALAC
> y/o LACRALO quien deba tomar posiciÃ³n a favor o en contra de la entre los
> Gobiernos y los respectivos gestores de los ccTLD. Croe que eso es tema a
> dilucidar entre el ccNSO y el GAC, donde actualmente se discuten esos temas
> (tanto el CWG ccNSO GNSO on the Use of Country an Territory Names, como el
> WG del GAC on Geographic Names). El hecho de que los Gobiernos de la regiÃ³n
> LAC no hayan hecho caso al llamado respectivo es de por si ya muy
> preocupante. Yo solo sugiero conocer y considerar primero las posiciones y
> esfuerzos respectivos, comentando directamente tanto a los reportes del GAC
> como del ccNSO en los procesos de consulta publica, antes de adelantar
> nuestra opinion basados en la carta de LACTLD solamente.
> Respetuosamente
> Carlos RaÃºl GutiÃ©rrez
> +506 8837 7176
> Skype: carlos.raulg
> Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
> On 27 Oct 2016, at 17:39, Aida Noblia wrote:
>
> Respecto al GAC, en la reuniÃ³n de Junio pasado en Helsinki se llegÃ³ al
> acuerdo que para poder ser usados los cÃ³digos de 2 caracteres de paÃs en el
> segundo nivel, mÃ¡s allÃ¡ que un paÃs no haya expresado su preferencia, la
> falta de respuesta no indica consentimiento. El consentimiento para el uso
> de estos dos caracteres debe ser expreso por  parte de los paÃses. Por lo
> tanto mientras no lo haga no pueden usarse esos cÃ³digos.  La declaraciÃ³n de
> LACTLD menciona que se deberÃa solicitar en este caso no solo el
> consentimiento del paÃs sino el del Administrador respectivo, para mayor
> garantÃa de los usuarios finales.
>
>
>
> Saludos
>
>
> 2016-10-27 9:16 GMT-03:00 <crg at isoc-cr.org>:
>
>>
>> [[--Translated text (en -> es)--]]
>>
>>  Asunto: Fwd: Los informes de la GTC sobre el uso de nombres de paÃses y
>> Territorio como dominios de primer nivel
>>  De: crg at isoc-cr.org
>>
>>  Estimados,
>>
>>
>>  en los links adjuntos pueden ver los Avances de el ccNSO GNSO-GTC-El uso
>> de
>>  Nombres de paÃses y territorios. De Creo Que ESTOS Documentos Relevantes
>> hijo
>>  para la DifusiÃ³n con LACTLD, AUNQUE Se Trata solo de Nombres de PaÃses
>>  Territorios y al Primer Nivel.
>>
>>
>>  Gracias y saludos
>>
>>
>>  Carlos RaÃºl GutiÃ©rrez
>>  +506 8837 7176
>>  Skype: carlos.raulg
>>  desplazamiento UTC actual: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
>>  Mensaje reenviado:
>>
>>
>> > From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>
>> > To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>> > Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Reports from the CWG on Use of Country and
>> > Territory Names as TLDs
>> > Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:12:11 +0000
>> >
>> > Dear WG Members,
>> >
>> > Of particular interest to sub team 2 in its work on reserved names,
>> > but possibly others as well Ã¢â‚¬â€œ
>> >
>> > The CWG on Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs has released two
>> > reports in advance of ICANN57:
>> >
>> > -          A progress report discussing the groupÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s work to date and
>> > outlining recommendations for future work
>> >
>> > -          A draft of the CWGÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Interim Report, which will be
>> > subject to public comment before becoming the groupÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Final Report
>> >
>> > Both reports are attached and available at
>> > https://community.icann.org/display/CWGOUCNT/Output+and+Draft+Documents
>> > .
>> >
>> > Kind regards,
>> > Emily
>> >
>> > Emily Barabas | Policy Specialist
>> > ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>> > Email: emily.barabas at icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
>> > Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

[[--Original text (es)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/64b5566fbc.html
--]]