orden del día de hoy

hcarrascob en gmail.com hcarrascob en gmail.com
Mar Oct 18 13:39:39 UTC 2016 

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

 Asunto: Re: orden del día de hoy 
 De: hcarrascob en gmail.com

 Muchas gracias Carlos !! 


 Maritza por favor agrégalos a la wiki. 




 Abrazos 


 Enviado desde mi iPhone 


> El 18-10-2016, a las 10:37, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg en isoc-cr.org> escribió:
> 
> Estimados,
> 
> les adjunto dos links 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. Estos links me los pasó el secretariado del GAC.
> 
> Saludos
> 
> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> +506 8837 7176
> Skype: carlos.raulg
> Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
> Forwarded message:
> 
>> 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/10538e3337.html
--]]

Más información sobre la lista de distribución lac-discuss-es