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

Mie Mar 21 14:12:33 UTC 2018

Gracias a todos po sus comentarios!

Hay dos vias para avanzar

   - la inicial es añadirlo como comentario (revisado) a mi intervención en
   el microfono en San Juan, antes de la proxima llamada del WT5 que creo que
   es la semana entrante
   - la segunda es a traves de LACRALO (a mucha honra), dejandolo abierto a
   mas comentarios de los demas RALOs

En todo caso voy a revisarlo en vista a los comentarios recibidos y vuelo a
circularlo mañana. Definitivametne tenemos dos parametros importantes a
cosdierar despues de la ultima ronda: el gran éxito de las ciudades grandes
(por un principio de subsidiariadad de estar sujetos a las autoridades
locales nada mas) y los malisimos resultados de comunidades que NO están
basadas en geografía (.sport .gay). Creo que debemos ser cuidadososo,
aprender de estas lecciones y hacer una definición muy detallada del
proposito.

Que tenga un feliz día!

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

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg en isoc-cr.org>
wrote:

> 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/20180321/baeda830/attachment.html>