FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED
The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.
FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED
The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins.
REDRAFTED AT MAUREEN'S REQUEST FACTORING IN MY COMMENTS BELOW:
The ALAC appreciates the difficulties experienced by the CWG Framework for the Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDS (CWG-UCTN) in attempting to fulfil its objective to "develop a consistent and uniform definitional framework that could be applicable across the respective SOs and ACs" and we make the following comments with regards to the recommendations posed in the CWG report.
The ALAC supports Recommendations 1, 2 and 4.
With regard to Recommendation 3, the ALAC supports option 3(c). Any work going forward must be both inclusive and will require a process which accomodates both the ccNSO PDP Process as well as the GNSO PDP governed by the ICANN BYlaws Appendix A coupled with the GNSO PDP Manual. Whether this will include a CWG or some other form of group or groups will need to be decided jointly by the ccNSO and the GNSO prior to work proceeding.
The ALAC appreciates the difficulties experienced by the CWG Framework for the Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDS (CWG-UCTN) in attempting to fulfil its objective to "develop a consistent and uniform definitional framework that could be applicable across the respective SOs and ACs" and we make the following comments with regards to the recommendations posed in the CWG report.
We too agree with Recommendations 1, 2 and 4 noting that the objective of the harmonised framework is important enough to establish a new and inclusive CWG, working on a more clarified Charter, that will continue and complete the development of the framework. This new CWG will require a Charter that clearly outlines its responsibilities and authority with regards to its eventual contribution to the ICANN policy development process.
We also opted for Recommendation 3 (c) as it clearly and succinctly defines the intent and direction of the CWG. Any explanation as to why this is important is very clearly detailed in your report.