[lac-discuss-en] (no subject)

[carlosraul at gutierrez.se]

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

 == utf-8? Q? _of_5_geogrnames = C3 = A1? _-_ New_pista_5? = =? Utf-8? 
 Desde: carlosraul at gutierrez.se

 Dear All, 


 As Alejandro points out, since the subject now encompasses the whole community, I want to add other points of view in which I have been directly involved in recent years: 


 1. The lack of consensus by the ccTLD community on the use of 3-letter (ISO) codes and names in the "CWG-UCTN" which during ICANN59 presented both ccNSO and GNSO their report requesting The closure of the group without being able to offer a comprehensive solution. I have been one of the co-chairs of this CWG by the GNSO and I gladly give you the link to the reference document. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS BEYOND THE 2-LETTER CODES. 


 2.The lack of consultation by ICANN to the community of the contract with the records of 2013, which allows the delegation of 2-letter codes (ISO) to the second level and has caused much discussion in the GAC of the last 3 releases, Which all have access but no comments by ALAC. The lack of transparency on the objectives of the various ccTLD management structures in the EU region well note Alexander in his point # 3 below require full transparency of the LACRALO representative in the leadership of this WT5. 


 To the best of my knowledge and understanding, it is important for ALAC to have a proper and thoughtful position on the subject, in view of the OMMISSIONS that both the ccNSO and the GAC have shown since 2010 when the GAC first gave advice on the subject. 


 Therefore, IGUAL requested the support of LACRALO with the responsibility of seeking a position from the point of view of users, above that of ccTLD operators and governments. 


 And in any case I reserve the right to participate individually in the WT5 of the PDP of the subsequent procedures. 


 Very cordially


 Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez 






 On June 29, 2017 9:16:13 PM GMT + 02: 00, Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty at gmail.com> Wrote: 
 > Vanda, 
 > 
 > The same argument of having been on the topic since 2010 invites 
 > Also to 
 > Some different considerations: 
 > 
 > 1. In recent times we could observe that in LACRALO there are points and 
 > Various and even opposing views on ccTLDs and their control 
 > Must have on combinations of characters similar to those of 
 > Their 
 > Names of two and three characters; Consensus was not reached; 
 > 
 > 2. It would be appropriate for you to submit a report on the state of 
 > Question in general, and the points that remain unresolved; 
 > 
 > 3.Between LACRALO organizations there are some conflicts of 
 > Interest in 
 > This subject; For example, some organizations are also 
 > Service providers 
 > CcTLDs, others have interventions in the names market 
 > Generic, and 
 > In others the managers are simultaneously public officials and 
 > National representatives to the GAC; 
 > 
 > 4. It would be convenient that in addition to proposing your own name you would give 
 > To know at least two alternatives, to be able to analyze freely if 
 > Continuity or rotation is more appropriate, and certainly for the 
 Less 
 > A representative accompanies you in these functions in order to 
 > Develop the capacity to replace you later. 
 > 
 > The same applies to other working groups and participants. The group 
 Of 
 > Governance work would make a great contribution if you 
 Number 
 > Maximum of simultaneous charges that a representative can serve 
 > Individual.
 > 
 > Best regards, 
 > 
 > Alejandro Pisanty 
 > 
 > 2017-06-29 9:17 GMT-05: 00 <vanda at scartezini.org> : 
 > 
 >> 
 >> [[--Translated text (en -&gt; es) -]] 
 >> 
 >> Subject: follow-up procedures for 5 names 
 > Geographical - 
 >> new track 5 
 >> From: vanda at scartezini.org 
 >> 
 >> Dear all - I do not know how to select each region so 
 I am 
 >> adding lACRALO ready to hear your opinion. 
 >> I would like to put my name as a member of the &quot;region of 
 > LAC &quot; 
 >> as suggested by GNSO (non-ALAC formal member) 
 >> Thank you for your consideration 
 >> This is a proposal by Jeff Neuman at the moment, and I think it is 
 One 
 >> divine idea, and this idea will make the groups much more 
 > Efficient, more 
 >> transparent and take the opinion of each region by ALAC, by the 
 > Governments 
 >> ... for a process For track 5 - the cross of the names 
 > Geographic 
 >> the community.
 >> I am also in the follow-up working group 1 on 
 >> subsequent procedures. 
 >> I'm jumping before hand only because after this since 2010 
 He 
 >> been very interested in the subject. 
 >> 
 >> 
 Thanks 
 >> 
 >> 
 >> Vanda Scartezini 
 >> Polo Associated Consultants 
 >> AV.Paulista 1159, cj 1004 
 >> 01311-200 - Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil 
 >> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 
 >> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 
 >> Sorry for any typos. 
 >> HAPPY 2017! 
 >> 
 >> 
 >> 
 >> 
 >> 
 >> 
 >> 
 >> 
 >> 



[[--Original text (es)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/84dd3e3ced.html
--]]