Nombres geográficos de segundo nivel

Mie Jul 5 19:08:59 UTC 2017

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

 Subject: Re: Nombres geográficos de segundo nivel 
 De: brainstreetceo en gmail.com

 FYI 

 · El asesoramiento emitido desde 2014 fue decisivo en la configuración de 
 Proceso &lt;  https://www.icann.org/resources/two-character-labels-archive> 
 Desarrollado por ICANN para el procesamiento de solicitudes de los nuevos operadores de registro de gTLD 
 Para liberar etiquetas de dos caracteres en el segundo nivel, que incluye 
 Notificación del gobierno y el examen de sus observaciones. 

 · El 8 de noviembre de 2016, la Junta Directiva de ICANN 
 &lt;  https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-11-08-en#2.a> 
 La recaída todas las etiquetas de dos caracteres en el segundo nivel en gTLD nuevos con 
 Nuevas medidas aprobadas para evitar la confusión con los códigos de país correspondientes 
 &lt;  https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/revised-measures-ltr-ltr-two-char-ascii-labels-country-codes-08nov16-en.pdf> 
 . 

 · El 16 de diciembre de 2016, la Organización de la ICANN publicó una 
 autorización 
 &lt;  https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/two-character-ltr-ltr-authorization-release-13dec16-en.pdf>, 
 Retirando efectivamente el proceso de autorización anterior.

 · Una encuesta [1] de miembros del GAC (32 encuestados que representan el 45% de los 
 Poblaciones) mostraron fuertes reservas sobre cómo el Consejo del GAC y los 
 Se tomaron en cuenta los gobiernos, así como sobre la conveniencia de 
 Las medidas aprobadas para evitar confusiones. 

 Atentamente 

 El Miércoles, 5 de julio de 2017 a las 2:56 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez &lt; 
 Carlosraul en gutierrez.se&gt; escribió: 

> For how long are we going to continue?
>
> GAC Advice came out 2010
> ccNSO worked from 2010-2014 with no policy result
> AGB reserved them at the first level, but the new 2013 contracts gave them
> away at the second level
> ccNSO and GNSO worked from 2014-2017 with no consensus between the parties
> for a general framework
> Subsequent Rounds created a WT5 last week in ICAN59......
>
> Maybe it's about time that
> 1) trademark law is not the only international law
> 2) GeoNames are NOT generic
> 3) GeoNames are small scale business models that do not fit into ICANN's
> large scale commercial GDD
>
>
> And we should be looking for a new approach
>
>
>
>
>
> On July 5, 2017 12:28:29 PM CST, Lance Hinds <brainstreetceo en gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> The fact of the matter is that in 2017 the geographic names, and their
>> derivatives, should be regarded as critical assets for national
>> development. Thoughtful policies therefore regarding the stewardship and
>> protection of that asset must be implemented in support that overall goal.
>> The CEO indicated during the meeting that he is open to continuing
>> discussions on this issue. If the fundamental mandate of the at-large is
>> the interests and/or protection of the average user, there is no question
>> that this issue requires further deliberation on our part.
>>
>> My two cents
>>
>> Lance
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Carlton Samuels <
>> carlton.samuels en gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear All:
>>> Allow me to share some facts from an incident.  Years ago, back in 2009,
>>> a media conglomerate based in Bermuda commissioned me to define and frame a
>>> strategy to extend the analog yellow page telephone directory concept to
>>> the digital and for the internet. All Caribbean countries were included;
>>> they owned and published the entire lot, north to south, east and west,
>>> every dot in the sea that had a public telephone system. We devised a plan
>>> with a baseline requirement for domain names that 'made sense'; portalize
>>> them for traffic concentration, shaping, management and eventually,
>>> exploitation.
>>>
>>> We discovered that Barbados, Jamaica, Cayman [Islands], Bermuda and
>>> several others were already registered in the .com space. And the owners
>>> were not connected in any way to the countries. This discovery lead to my
>>> exploring the contours of the DNS marketplace for the first time.
>>>
>>> Since we were advising a commercial operation, we contacted the
>>> registrant of record hoping to negotiate and conclude a commercial
>>> transaction for transfer. Not a problem, they responded.  Starting price,
>>> US$1M for each. The owners of the yellow page directories did not blink on
>>> price. Their existing business model almost guaranteed them income once the
>>> telephone number was listed. And up until then what they had was a license
>>> to mint money; my estimate of the free cash generated across the entire set
>>> of printed directories across the Caribbean was between US$40-$60M per
>>> annum. End result is they did not take to the monetisation plan based on
>>> selling ads from landings on the [portal] page. It was way to novel for
>>> them at the time. So they said no to the entire plan.
>>>
>>> These domains are still owned by commercial interests without recourse
>>> to official administration of countries  or ccTLD interests.  And some even
>>> resolve and are used for exactly what we had intended. Any consideration we
>>> give to geographic names at second level, be it 2-character or 3-character,
>>> will have to deal with these facts as they are.
>>>
>>> -Carlton
>>>
>>>
>>> ==============================
>>> *Carlton A Samuels*
>>>
>>> *Mobile: 876-818-1799 <(876)%20818-1799>Strategy, Planning, Governance,
>>> Assessment & Turnaround*
>>> =============================
>>>
>>> 2017-07-05 4:19 GMT-05:00 <aidanoblia en gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]
>>>>
>>>>  == utf-8? Q? _of_5_geogrnames = C3 = A1? _-_ New_pista_5? = =? Utf-8?
>>>>  Desde: aidanoblia en gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>  According to Humberto's proposals, especially with regard to addressing
>>>>  The issue from the point of view of the end user in our region.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Although I am not expert, the subject has worried to the community
>>>> LACRALO,
>>>>  Directly affected and was discussed a long time ago, with respect to a
>>>>  Pair of specific cases, in relation to names of two characters of our
>>>>  Region that referred to geographical areas.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Now at the GAC meeting with ALAC, ICANN 59,
>>>>  More focused on new and three-character domain names,
>>>>  Also presented on the screen a rather long questionnaire, in which
>>>>  Sought to reach agreement on each question, although
>>>>  Different positions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  The foundations were, on the one hand, the right of applicants to have
>>>>  The domain name that they freely choose, on the other, the right of the
>>>>  Internet users residing in the geographical areas
>>>>  Respects their right to preserve such names for uses relating to the
>>>> area
>>>>  And in the interests of end-users
>>>>  Could easily be confused about discriminating
>>>>  Names correspond to official or governmental sites or companies or
>>>>  People or issues relating to your location or region.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  In principle and from my very modest point of view, as expressed in the
>>>>  JNB meeting, this is something that is already confusing and causes
>>>> some
>>>>  Conflicts: different interests are at stake.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On the one hand: the interest of business and commerce in their
>>>> freedom of
>>>>  Choose domain names that are economically disadvantaged if they are
>>>>  Limit their rights.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On the other hand, the rights of residents in the regions
>>>>  Could be affected by commercial use, although as seen in JNB,
>>>>  In some cases that may not be important for users in the region
>>>>  Respectively. In this case, a consent was
>>>>  The issue of whether or not to collect and how.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On the other hand, the interest of end users of
>>>>  Internet, which could be confused, not only with reference to trade
>>>>  Of goods and services.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  As set out in the ICANN Bylaws and its implementing rules,
>>>>  Which must be defended by representatives of the interests of
>>>>  The end users of internet is the interest of these.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  The other commercial interests, defend themselves and thus
>>>>  Made at that meeting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  I understand that another interest at stake is, according to the
>>>> legislation of each
>>>>  Country, the right of consumers, among other rights, not to be
>>>>  Cause confusion, in relation to certain products or services that are
>>>>  Offered on the net. This interest as consumers comes to be confused
>>>> with
>>>>  Many cases with those of the end user of the internet, with the
>>>>  Whereas consumer protection is widely legislated in the
>>>>  different countries. Although the meeting did not address the rights of
>>>>  the consumers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Greetings to all
>>>>  AÃda
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  The 3 of July of 2017, 16:59, Vanda Scartezini <vanda en scartezini.org>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Hola Alejandro.
>>>> > Si no hay consenso en ninguna parte. Hay una posiciÃ³n mÃ¡s radical de
>>>> unos
>>>> > especialmente del GAC respecto nombres de dominio que puedan ser
>>>> utilizados
>>>> > como geogrÃ¡ficos â€“ preguntas surgen:
>>>> > A) como se vÃ¡ controlar esto, quien por ejemplo controlaria el â€œuso
>>>> > geogrÃ¡ficoâ€ de un nombre como SPA â€“ su localizaciÃ³n en SPA ya
>>>> mereceria ser
>>>> > cualificado como uso geogrÃ¡fico y por lo tanto no aceptable?
>>>> > El sub grupo 5 tiene la intenciÃ³n de discutir cuestiones como eta e
>>>> > proponer una soluciÃ³n para cada punto
>>>> > B) se uno tiene la marca SPA para seguir con el mismo ejemplo, la
>>>> > comunidad de SPA tiene o no el derecho de utilizar su denominaciÃ³n
>>>> > geogrÃ¡fica y seria esto una violation de una regra, si tal regla vier
>>>> a
>>>> > existir?
>>>> > Etc.
>>>> >  La idea de crear esto grupo mira soluciÃ³n a estos conflictos â€“ por
>>>> esto
>>>> > mismo el grupo debe ser reduzido para lograr alcanzar un consenso. En
>>>> > principio dentro de la cross community se piensa que puede ser una
>>>> idea
>>>> > razonable.
>>>> > A ver lo que el GNSO concretamente piensa y se manda proseguir o no.
>>>> >  Sigo en followup y vuelvo a ustedes.
>>>> > Fuerte abrazo.
>>>> >
>>>> > A ti ALEx, conto que sentimos tu falta â€“ el almuerzo del board con los
>>>> > former members fue concentrado en recuerdos para ICANN history. Creo
>>>> que
>>>> > tienes mucho a contribuir. No olvides de enviar tus recuerdos de los
>>>> > primeros tiempos para el staff Melissa King <melissa.king en icann.org>
>>>> > AbraÃ§os
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > *Vanda Scartezini*
>>>> >
>>>> > *Polo Consultores Associados*
>>>> >
>>>> > *Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004*
>>>> >
>>>> > *01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil*
>>>> >
>>>> > *Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 <+55%2011%203266-6253>*
>>>> >
>>>> > *Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 <+55%2011%2098181-1464> *
>>>> >
>>>> > *Sorry for any typos. *
>>>> >
>>>> > *HAPPY 2017!*
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > From: "lac-discuss-es-bounces en atlarge-lists.icann.org" <
>>>> > lac-discuss-es-bounces en atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of
>>>> Alejandro
>>>> > Pisanty <apisanty en gmail.com>
>>>> > Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 16:16
>>>> > To: "lac-discuss-es en atlarge-lists.icann.org" <
>>>> > lac-discuss-es en atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>>> > Cc: LACRALO list <lac-discuss-en en atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>>> > Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-es] procedimientos posteriores seguimiento
>>>> de 5
>>>> > nombres geogrÃ¡ficos - nueva pista 5
>>>> >
>>>> > Vanda,
>>>> >
>>>> > el mismo argumento de haberr estado en el tema desde 2010 invita
>>>> tambiÃ©n a
>>>> > algunas consideraciones diferentes:
>>>> >
>>>> > 1. en fechas recientes pudimos observar que en LACRALO imperan puntos
>>>> e
>>>> > vista diversos y hasta opuestos sobre los ccTLDs y el control que
>>>> Ã©stos
>>>> > deben tener sobre las combinaciones de caracteres similares a las de
>>>> sus
>>>> > nombres de dos y de tres caracteres; no se alcanzÃ³ un consenso;
>>>> >
>>>> > 2. serÃa pertinente que presentaras un informe acerca del estado de la
>>>> > cuestiÃ³n en general, y de los puntos que siguen sin resolver;
>>>> >
>>>> > 3. entre las organizaciones de LACRALO hay algunos conflictos de
>>>> interÃ©s
>>>> > en esta materia; por ejemplo, algunas organizaciones son tambiÃ©n
>>>> operadoras
>>>> > de ccTLDs, otras tienen  intervenciones en el mercado de nombres
>>>> genÃ©ricos,
>>>> > y en otras los directivos son simulÃ¡neamente funcionarios pÃºblicos y
>>>> > representantes nacionales ante el GAC;
>>>> >
>>>> > 4. serÃa conveniente que ademÃ¡s de proponer tu propio nombre dieras a
>>>> > conocer al menos dos alternativas, para poder analizar con libertad si
>>>> > conviene mÃ¡s la continuidad o la rotaciÃ³n, y ciertamente para que al
>>>> menos
>>>> > un representante te acompaÃ±e en estas funciones con el objeto de
>>>> > desarrollar la capacidad de que te substituya posteriormente.
>>>> >
>>>> > Lo mismo se aplica a otros grupos de trabajo y participantes. El
>>>> grupo de
>>>> > trabajo de gobernanza harÃa una gran contribuciÃ³n si estudiara el
>>>> nÃºmero
>>>> > mÃ¡ximo de cargos simultÃ¡neos que puede servir un representante
>>>> individual.
>>>> >
>>>> > Saludos cordiales,
>>>> >
>>>> > Alejandro Pisanty
>>>> >
>>>> > 2017-06-29 9:17 GMT-05:00 <vanda en scartezini.org>:
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> [[--Translated text (en -> es)--]]
>>>> >>
>>>> >>  Asunto: procedimientos posteriores seguimiento de 5 nombres
>>>> geogrÃ¡ficos
>>>> >> - nueva pista 5
>>>> >>  De: vanda en scartezini.org
>>>> >>
>>>> >>  Queridos todos - No sÃ© cÃ³mo se seleccionarÃ¡ cada regiÃ³n por lo que
>>>> estoy
>>>> >> agregando lACRALO lista para escuchar su opiniÃ³n.
>>>> >>  Me gustarÃa poner mi nombre como miembro de la &quot;regiÃ³n de
>>>> LAC&quot;
>>>> >> segÃºn lo sugerido por GNSO (no miembro formal de ALAC)
>>>> >>  Gracias por su consideraciÃ³n
>>>> >>  Esto es una propuesta de Jeff Neuman en este momento, y creo que es
>>>> una
>>>> >> idea divina, y esta idea harÃ¡ que los grupos sean mucho mÃ¡s
>>>> eficientes, mÃ¡s
>>>> >> transparentes y tomen la opiniÃ³n de cada regiÃ³n por ALAC, por los
>>>> gobiernos
>>>> >> ... para un proceso Para la pista 5 - la cruz de los nombres
>>>> geogrÃ¡ficos de
>>>> >> la comunidad.
>>>> >>  TambiÃ©n estoy en el grupo de trabajo de seguimiento 1 sobre
>>>> >> procedimientos subsiguientes.
>>>> >>  Estoy saltar antes de la mano sÃ³lo porque despuÃ©s de esto desde
>>>> 2010 he
>>>> >> estado muy interesado en el tema.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>  gracias
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>  Vanda Scartezini
>>>> >>  Polo Consultores Associados
>>>> >>  AV.Paulista 1159, cj 1004
>>>> >>  01311-200 - Sao Paulo, SP, Brasil
>>>> >>  LÃnea terrestre: +55 11 3266.6253 <+55%2011%203266-6253>
>>>> >>  MÃ³vil: + 55 11 98181.1464 <+55%2011%2098181-1464>
>>>> >>  Lo siento por cualquier error tipogrÃ¡fico.
>>>> >>  Â¡FELIZ 2017!
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

[[--Original text (en)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/7e0f183d06.html
--]]