[lac-discuss-es] Fwd: agenda de hoy

[crg en isoc-cr.org]

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

 Asunto: Fwd: agenda de hoy 
 De: crg en isoc-cr.org

 Estimados, 


 Les adjunto DOS enlaces Mas Que No Pude ENCONTRAR ayer Sobre el Proceso 
 del GAC y La Delegación de los Códigos de país de 2 letras al Segundo 
 Nivel. Estós me une los Paso El secretariado del GAC. 


 Saludos 


 Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez 
 +506 8837 7176 
 Skype: carlos.raulg 
 desplazamiento UTC actual: -6.00 (Costa Rica) 
 Mensaje reenviado: 


> From: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling en icann.org>
> To: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <carlosraulg en gmail.com>
> Subject: RE: [Ctn-crosscom] Todays agenda
> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:07:46 +0000
>
> Dear Carlos,
> The GDD webpage for this matter is at 
> https://www.icann.org/resources/two-character-labels/ but it doesn't 
> take the form of any table. You can also get an overview of the steps 
> foreseen regarding release of 2-char labels at a web page on the GAC 
> website, notably at 
> https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Two-Letter+Second-Level+Domains 
> .
> Hope this is somewhat helpful.
> All the best
> Olof
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. [mailto:carlosraulg en gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 7:54 PM
> To: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling en icann.org>
> Subject: Fwd: [Ctn-crosscom] Todays agenda
>
> Dear Olof,
>
> hope all is well on your side. As the discussion on the use of 2 
> -letter codes as Country and Territory names as a TLD warms up for the 
> next ICANN meeting. I have a quick question for you: Where can I find 
> a summary or table of what Governments answered about the delegation 
> of the country 2 -letter codes as a Second Level Domain to the new 
> gTLDs?
>
> Thank you very much for your help.
>
> Best regards
>
> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> +506 8837 7176
> Skype: carlos.raulg
> Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
> Forwarded message:
>
>> From: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel en icann.org>
>> To: ctn-crosscom en icann.org <ctn-crosscom en icann.org>
>> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] Todays agenda
>> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:32:03 +0000
>>
>> Dear all,
>> Please find included latest version of the Progress report and 
>> Interim
>> paper.
>>
>> Proposed agenda:
>>
>> -         Welcome and Roll call
>>
>> -         Progress report. Discussion recommendation 2 ( Alternative 
>> A
>> or B, other)
>>
>> -         Presentation Progress report to community
>>
>> -         Hyderabad meeting:
>>
>> o   F-2-f session WG
>>
>> o   Other session (ccNSO- GNSO Council meeting, ccNSO GAC- meeting,
>> ccNSO-Board meeting)
>>
>> -         Draft Interim paper staff update
>>
>> -         AOB & Closure
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Bart
>>
>> Changes Progres report
>> The recommendations have been updated follwing the discussions of two
>> weeks ago. Although a long discussion was held on the impact of
>> closure of this WG , to date no alternatives were suggested. Please
>> note that recommendation 1 and 3 were adopted 4 weeks ago.  Two weeks
>> ago the discussion focused on the alternatives and no conclusion was
>> reached. If the progress report needs to be out in time for the
>> Hyderabad meeting, this is a matter of urgency.
>>
>> Recommendations Progress Report
>> In light of the need for further work, the complexity of the issue at
>> hand, the aforementioned inconsistencies between various ICANN
>> policies, and the limited mandate of the CWG on the use of Country 
>> and
>> Territory Names as TLDs, the CWG makes the following recommendations:
>>
>> Recommendation 1
>> The CWG unanimously recommends that the ICANN community consolidate
>> all policy efforts relating to geographic names (as that term has
>> traditionally very broadly been defined in the ICANN environment to
>> this point) to enable in-depth analyses and discussions on all 
>> aspects
>> related to all geographic-related names at all levels of the DNS. 
>> This
>> is the only way, in our view, to determine whether a harmonized
>> framework is truly achievable.
>>
>> Recommendation 2 Alternative A
>> The CWG could not agree unanimously on the following:
>> Future work should take place with the authority of a policy
>> development process under ICANN’s Bylaws, with a clearly drafted
>> Charter or scope of works that sets out how conclusions and
>> recommendations will inform that policy development process. This
>> addresses a key deficiency of this CWG, as it has not been made clear
>> how the group’s work can or will be incorporated in policy-making
>> pursuant to ICANN’s Bylaws.
>>
>> Some members of the WG raised the concern that issues that are in
>> scope of both the ccNSO and GNSO policy development processes, for
>> example how full names of countries and territories other than Latin
>> scripts are dealt with, should be addressed through a coordinated
>> effort under both processes.
>>
>> Recommendation 2 Alternative B
>> To ensure that the conclusions and recommendations of a CWG will at
>> one point have the authority of a policy developed through the
>> relevant processes under ICANN’s Bylaws, future work should take 
>> place
>> with a clear view on how this work at some point will reach the
>> authority of a policy developed as or relates to and provides input 
>> to
>> formal policy development processes. With regard to the subject
>> matter, the use of country and territory names as TLDs the CWG notes
>> that this should be defined with respect to both the ccNSO and GNSO
>> Policy development processes. Due to the overlapping definitions used
>> under existing policies, additional policy developed by one group,
>> impact and has an effect upon the policy developed for another group.
>> This may be achieved through a clearly drafted Charter or scope of
>> works that sets out how these policy development processes will be
>> informed. This addresses a key deficiency this CWG has encountered, 
>> as
>> it has not been made clear how the group’s work can or will be
>> incorporated in policy-making pursuant to ICANN’s Bylaws.
>>
>> Recommendation 3
>> Future policy development work must facilitate an all-inclusive
>> dialogue to ensure that all members of the community have the
>> opportunity to participate. Again, we believe that this is the only
>> way to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable.
>>
>> Draft Interim Paper
>> Staff has also been working on the interim paper. We have cleaned it
>> up on the basis of the feed-back received to date, updating some of
>> the sections and checking whether the “research questions� in 
>> section
>> 4 of the paper (Methodology) are addressed in section 5. 1 on
>> two-letter codes. If so that provides a starting point for the
>> conclusion of no conclusion on 3-letter codes.
>> As to section 4 methodology, it now includes a reference to the
>> surveys/ questionnaires on two-and three letter codes. The results 
>> are
>> included in Annex D.
>>
>> In addition, Annex C has been added: listing of the members,
>> participants and observers of the WG
>>
>> We have also included the final section (6) the observations,
>> conclusions and recommendations of the progress report.
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ctn-crosscom mailing list
>> Ctn-crosscom en icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
 lac-discuss-en la lista de correo 
 lac-discuss-en en atlarge-lists.icann.org 
 https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en 



[[--Original text (en)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/9c4da0360d.html
--]]