[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

喬敬 chiao at brandma.co
Thu Nov 30 09:45:15 UTC 2017

I agree with Robin for

Paragraph 1: "approval" model is not necessary and the discussion is not
necessary neither. There's nothing wrong with existing model using GAC
early warning / advises / no-objection letter.

Paragraph 2: Fully agree with "cultural" and "economic" terms are outside
of WT5 scope. On the other hand, brand name with cultural and economic
significance can use its business power to have its local government to
name/rename a place (i.e. industry park, founder's hometown) using the
brand name. There're already examples in China.

Best regards,


On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:48 AM, 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

Ching Chiao
Founder & CEO
Brandma Internet Group

+886.918.211372 || +86.135.2018.7032 || +1.908.4990050
Beijing . Chengdu . Hangzhou . Hong Kong . Shenzhen. Taipei
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20171130/8d559611/attachment.html>

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