[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

Alexander Schubert alexander at schubert.berlin
Thu Dec 7 15:52:41 UTC 2017


Hi Greg,

 

I agree with you 100% that the role of Governments WITHIN the “multi-stakeholder” PDP approach is “one of many”. As Olga already pointed out: it is even an “unequal” one, as GAC’s rights are restricted.

But I guess we are confusing cause and effect here:
The CURRENT role of this WT 5 and the gNSO (if you want: the ICANN PDP process in general) and their proponents has to be clearly distinguished from the future role of custodians of “geographical names”. Look at it as the “separation of powers”: the separation of legislative and judicial! I am in TOTAL AGREEMENT that in the current legislative PDP process the GAC should have just one of many voices. But indeed it is NOT “GAC” that is (or should) be the frontrunner of proposing wide-ranging protections of geographical names – as it isn’t the countries that need to be protected: IT IS THEIR CITIZENS that want to be protected! So even if we would “gag” GAC in this WT5 (which of course we won’t): The outcome would be just the same: wide-ranging protections of geo-names to protect the affected Internet Users from harm! 

The Government’s protection role comes into play later: Once we are talking judicial actions. Once somebody applies for “.turkey” – but they try to promote drugs – not the great nation of Turkey! We need then custodians in place who have SIMPLE tools at hand to be warned and to be able to PROTECT geographical names FOR THEIR CITIZENS (not for “themselves”). And the most simple tool is: Requirement of a letter of non-objection! If somebody wants a gTLD for drug promotion and choses “.turkey”: GREAT! Go for it. But make it easy for the Turkish Government to exercise its custodian role – and weed that application out!

So let’s please be cognizant of the separation of powers in the chain of events:
A) PDP 
B) real life application phase

 

During the PDP Governments will be one of many. Later during the application submission phase they will be the ONLY ones who are suited to guard The People’s geo identities. Unless of course we find another solution – which I am open for; but doubtful.

Is this distinction halfway intelligent? Have I explained it in a way that people understand it?

Thanks,

Alexander.berlin




 

 

 

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 6:21 AM
To: Bonnie B Mtengwa <bmtengwa at potraz.gov.zw>
Cc: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>; alexander at schubert.berlin; 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

 

 

 

The role of governments here is that of one set of stakeholders among many.  Governments don't get to be special stakeholders.  The essence of the multistakeholder model, rooted in the private sector (broadly defined), is that the people get to speak directly -- without the intermediation of governments.  

 

When government representatives speak here, their pronouncements don't carry extra weight.  The proposition has been put forth that when stakeholders speak, it is merely their own personal views.  If this is true for any stakeholders, it must be true for all.  Conversely, if it is not true for some stakeholders, it is not true for any.

 

The latter is clearly the case -- it is not true.  The multistakeholder model demands that each of us act in a representative capacity for the stakeholders in our particular community that do not participate directly.  This is not the special province of governments.  A fundamental truth of ICANN is that it is not and cannot be a "government-led" structure.  It is not merely a multistakeholder structure -- it is an equally multistakeholder structure.

 

I share Farzaneh's view that the utopian ideal of the government as nothing more than the representative of the people doesn't really hold true in reality.  Governments represent their own interests, which (for self-preservation) need to intersect with the interests of whoever (or whatever) put them in power -- party supporters, big donors, the establishment, etc.  That is not meant to invalidate governments -- just to caution against elevating them above other stakeholders in this process.

 

This is particularly true with regard to the topic of strings with geographic meanings (a/k/a geographic names).  These strings are not uniquely geographic; they have other meanings and applications.  We can't elevate the geographic meaning/application above other meanings/applications -- for that very reason we cannot elevate governments above other stakeholders.

 

Greg

 

 

 

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Bonnie B Mtengwa <bmtengwa at potraz.gov.zw <mailto:bmtengwa at potraz.gov.zw> > wrote:

Dear Team

 

When relating to geo-Names we cannot avoid talking of Governments, because people in those areas are represented by their Governments, and the Governments appoints its own representatives in the GAC. 

So whether legitimately elected or appointed, the fact is that Geo-Names are also in the purview of governments.

 

The role of governments then need to be clearly defined in our work, because they are critical if we need to move forward on this issue.

 

Bonnie 

 

From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> >
Date: Monday, 04 December 2017 at 07:14
To: <alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin> >


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

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20171207/082355b0/attachment.html>


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