[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well

Sat Dec 2 22:58:26 UTC 2017

Dear Paul,

I am split on this:

I agree with you that “Governments” should not be able to make entire lists of strings ineligible for application as gTLD; as it for example happened with ISO 3166 Alpha-3 code elements and country names (think .est for Estonian eGovernment or .spain for the Spanish tourism authorities: not eligible for registration in 2012). 

But on the other hands the citizenry of a region, city or country has elected representatives to organize the state affairs; and The People must be able to rely on the ability of their representatives to protect national place names of interest. NOT because “the Government” wants to protect them out of some “reflex” – but because nobody ELSE than the Government would protect the citizenry from losing access to the name!

In that respect: Surely we do not need to protect every hill or small stream. But we ought to make it convenient for Governments to know what is being applied for and give them SIMPLE tools to prevent abuse. Once we are leaving “rounds”: we can’t expect every Government to monitor incoming applications. 

But again: I am  in agreement that Governments often tend to be overprotective; and we have to balance that! They sit at the table with us – we should listen to their feedback on our policy drafts.

Thanks,

Alexander Schubert

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 6:29 PM
To: 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; 'Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
Cc: 'Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well

Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation “sovereign rights” to place names …  I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM
To: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> >
Cc: Aslam Mohamed <aslam at rnaip.com <mailto:aslam at rnaip.com> >; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> >; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> >
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well

Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.”   The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”).

I agree that we all need to express our views freely.  However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread.  Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views.  Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views.  A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue.  Clearly, that’s not happening.

Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG.  In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration.

There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here.  We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights.  Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law.

Greg

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> > wrote:

Dear All

There is no primacy issue here.

It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected

There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them

If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage

You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights

We need to express our views freely without being  criticised , collectively attacked and ofended 

Tks 

Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote:

Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct.  The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model.  It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM
To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam at rnaip.com <mailto:aslam at rnaip.com> >
Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well

Robin;

Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.

It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing.  Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal”  as all are stakeholders.  This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so.  This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.

We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.

Greg

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam at rnaip.com <mailto:aslam at rnaip.com> > wrote:

Dear Kavouss 

I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.

Kind Regards

Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate

US Business Development

Mob +1 646 243 9857 <tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> 

RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys 

rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/>  

On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> > wrote:

Robin Gross  <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> via icann.org <http://icann.org/>  

6:48 PM (1 hour ago) 

  <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> 

	  <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> 

  <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif>  within the lines

Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin

to gnso-newgtld-w. 

  <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> 

I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.

Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names.  It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work.  We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.

Reply

This is your views, 

Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before  2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD

 .

Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP.  This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate.   Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names.  This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT

Reply

Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria 

 While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks.  We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well.  We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation.  Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis.   So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Reply

While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative

Regards

Kavouss 

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org> > wrote:

Hi Robin, 

Thank you for sending through your comments.  We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.

Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks.  At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied.  Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance.  I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.

Kind regards,

Martin

Martin Sutton

Executive Director

Brand Registry Group

martin at brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org> 

On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org> > wrote:

I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.

Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names.  It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work.  We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.

Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP.  This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate.   Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names.  This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT. 

While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks.  We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well.  We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation.  Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis.   So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.

Thanks,
Robin

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

  _____  

IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20171203/b3337c38/attachment-0001.html>