[lac-discuss-es] Fwd: Draft comment to WT-5 session during ICANN61

Lun Mar 19 20:55:07 UTC 2018

Traduccion cortesia de Google

Estimado Liderazgo de LACRALO,

Como algunos de ustedes saben, pasé casi 3 años en un CWG ccNSO-GNSO
sobre el uso de nombres de países y territorios, y nos quedamos
atrapados en los códigos de 3 letras de la lista ISO 3166-1.

La semana pasada, durante la reunión de SubPro WT5 en PR, también nos
quedamos atrapados en la misma lista y casi pierdo la esperanza de
algún progreso. Pero después de las conversaciones con los miembros
del WT5, incluido el representante del GAC de Suiza, los gerentes de
ccTLD de Estonia y Nueva Zelanda, y el copresidente más hábil de ALA
del WT5, vine con algunas ideas sobre cómo librarme de este obstáculo
y Continuar haciendo progresos con una política de nombres geográficos
completos para el futuro.

En ese sentido, le pido amablemente sus comentarios, adiciones,
correcciones y el eventual respaldo del proyecto de moción adjunto,
que quiero agregar a mis comentarios en el micrófono durante esa
sesión. Por supuesto, quiero enviar mis comentarios antes de la
próxima convocatoria, que es la próxima semana .........

Me alegra agregar los nombres de cualquiera que apoye el movimiento

BORRADOR para comentarios y expresión de apoyo

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
ISOC Costa Rica Chapter
skype carlos.raulg
+506 8837 7176
________
Apartado 1571-1000
COSTA RICA

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg en isoc-cr.org>
Date: Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 4:51 PM
Subject: Draft comment to WT-5 session during ICANN61
To: LACRALO <lac-discuss-es en atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Cc: Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob en gmail.com>, Alberto Soto <
asoto en ibero-americano.org>, "rihogris en gmail.com" <rihogris en gmail.com>, "Me
on BartlettMorgan.com" <me en bartlettmorgan.com>, Bartlett Morgan <
bartlett.morgan en gmail.com>

Dear Leadership of LACRALO,

As some of you know, I spent almost 3 years in a CWG ccNSO-GNSO on the use
of country and territory names, and we got stuck on the 3 letter codes of
the ISO 3166-1 list.

Last week, during the SubPro WT5 meeting in PR, we also got stuck on that
very same list and I almost lost my hope of any progress. But after talks
with members of the WT5, including the Swiss GAC rep, the ccTLD managers of
Estonia and New Zealand, and the most able ALAC Co-Chair of WT5, I came
with some ideas on how to get rid of this stumbling block and continue
making progress with a policy for full geo names for the future.

In that sense I kindly ask for your comments, additions, corrections and
eventual support of the draft motion attached, that I want to add to my
comments on the microphone during that session. Of course, I want to submit
my comments before the next call which is next week.........

Glad to add the names of anyone who supports the motion

DRAFT for comments and expression of support

Dear WT5 Participants:

We trust that all of us have returned home OK from San Juan following ICANN
61.

For the record and with a view to our next conference call on 28 March,
05.00 UTC, this is just to recall some points made during the discussion on
Wednesday morning, 14 March.

For the Subsequent procedures PDP to go forward without delay, we need to
make progress on a new geo.TLD policy for “full names” fast. Based on
previous efforts (like the previous policy efforts of the ccNSO, the
ccNSO-GNSO-CWG that followed, and the efforts within the GAC) it is not
advisable to pursue the idea that the 2012 Applicant Guide Book (AGB)
reserved list of geo.names (based on codes dependent on outside reference
lists) a relevant default. That text (AGB) effectively failed to address
several classes of names that are of significant interest to user
communities, represents today a lacunae which gave rise to several
disagreements and delays last time around (.amazon, .africa, .persiangulf).

The first registered ccTLDs were .us <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.us>,
.uk <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.uk>, and .il
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.il>, all registered in 1985. But It has
taken until today to (not) make a decision on the 3 letter alpha codes. In
the meantime, other geography-related top-level domains have been
successfully delegated, like is the case for the city TLDs (.Berlin,
.London, .Rio, etc.) as well as some region and new countries, like .cat,
.bzh and .srb. Obviously, as more exception emerge to reference codes
dependent on outside reference lists there is a growing space for conflict.
There remains a tremendous and growing inconsistency in the particular case
with the 3-letter codes of the ISO 3166-1 list which own the last round
served as the basis for another ineffective reservation.  For that reason I
have suggested during our meeting in ICANN61 that it is important for WT5
to eliminate the restrictions of the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list is an
important step, so that an effective  “full.geo.name” evaluation policy,
consistent with modern developments in the DNS space can be developed for
subsequent rounds.

Short codes/acronyms of the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list are not “Generic” in
the usual ICANN sense of the DNS expansion but for few exceptions. For that
reason, I submit this modest draft PROPOSAL TO DELEGATE 3 letter codes to
interested Governments and other geo related public interest entities
previous or during the next round. Taking the delegation of 2-letter codes
to ccTLD managers as a precedent n the mid-80s, we should assume that there
is demand out there for the differentiated use of 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list
codes, either by Governments, public entities, communities and even some
ccTLD managers themselves. So instead of the 3-letter codes of the ISO-
3166-1 list remaining reserved, the WT5 should analyze the possibility of
using subsequent rounds and use the proven evaluation methodology and
assigning process of the last round (like in the case for city names) for
the ISO list 3 letter codes.

This option to delegate/register the whole  3-letter code ISO list, opens
the space for other public interest parties to apply for a few IGO/IGNO
specific 3 letter codes that also have been reserved (IOC, WHO, IMF) and
then leaving all other 3 letter permutation outside the ISO list and
IGO/INGOs open for creative applications in the generic domain space. A
back of the envelope calculation will show that offering to delegate the
first group and taking into account the existing 3 letter codes will amount
to a total of less than 500 TLDs. That leaves more than 20’000 possible
permutation open for evaluation as new gTLDs.

WT5 should seriously consider a delegation process for the 3 letter ISO
3166-1 list (as opposed to maintaining an incongruent reservation list)
under the following assignment conditions

1. Right of First Refusal To Governments of countries/territories to THEIR
3 Letter Codes (ISO...);

2. Right of Second Refusal al ccTLD manager del país o territorio
correspondiente (en PR sería Gauss/PR Top Level Domain, no el Estado Libre
Asociado);

3. Right of the Third Refusal to a pertinent linguistic, ethnic, indigenous
community or people as said concepts are defined by International Law; as
long as they get support from the respective political entities

4. If none of the above show interest in the pertinent 3 Letter Code of the
ISO 3166-1,  then to any IGO/INGO that has requested protection in the past

5. Finally, if then string shall be an available gTLD for any qualified
applicant.

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
ISOC Costa Rica Chapter / ALS Costa Rica
skype carlos.raulg
+506 8837 7176 <+506%208837%207176>
________
Apartado 1571-1000
COSTA RICA
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-es/attachments/20180319/8819db96/attachment-0001.html>