[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

farzaneh badii farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
Mon Dec 4 05:14:34 UTC 2017


On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Alexander Schubert <
alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:

> Dear Group,
>
>
>
> regarding the role of “governments”:
>
> People rely on their elected representatives to defend them from (for
> example) land grabs: e.g. city names, country names, or other geo based
> gTLDs. In this regard the “Government” doesn’t exercise some “control”: it
> protects the interests of its citizens! For the People (by the people).
>
> In that regard: I see a very POSITIVE role in Governments protecting
> namespaces from being cyber squatted.
>
>
>
> So thanks to the GAC: Keep fighting for The People.
>
> Alexander.berlin
>

​Even for democratic countries the ​above sounds very optimistic to me.
Governments don't  always fight  for their people they have their self
interest and incentives, like many other entities and actors. Governments
don't  always get elected by their people. Even in democratic countries
when you talk about the government you need to be very specific. Government
is big. Are you talking about the elected representatives or just some
administrative representatives who are appointed not elected? GAC does not
gain any legitimacy over other actors just because they are "governments".




>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Arasteh
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:55 PM
> *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.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
>
>
>
> 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 redbranchcons
> ulting.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 <(202)%20329-9650>
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org
> <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>
> *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
>
>
>
> 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> 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 <+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>
> wrote:
>
>
> Robin Gross via <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en>
> icann.org
>
> 6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.] within the lines
>
>
>
> Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
>
> to gnso-newgtld-w.
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
>
> 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> 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
>
>
>
>
> On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> 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
> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> 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
> 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/20171204/e3d39260/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD109.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20171204/e3d39260/WRD109-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5676 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20171204/e3d39260/image001-0001.png>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list