[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments

Mon Apr 2 04:35:34 UTC 2018

I would say that the ideas and concepts in RFC 3071 are still quite
relevant.  I'd prefer that others (and Christopher) consider their
substance, rather than finding ways to dismiss them without responding to
them.  We have not been at this domain name thing for all that long, and
there is relatively little that looks at the taxonomy of domain names in
any comprehensive way.

*Christopher, can you clarify what "relevant prior rights" you are
referring to with regard to geographical names?  Which laws and/or treaties
are you referring to, and to which parts?*

While I hope that "the question of multiple uses can be resolved," I expect
that it will, indeed it must, become a driver of "the eventual policy for
geographical names."

It's an interesting way to turn history on its head and state that "all
sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept
within GNSO."  It's really quite the opposite.  Once upon a time, there was
a DNSO and the DNSO was in charge of policy for all domain names.  Then
came a time when two-letter TLDs specifically designated for a particular
country or autonomous territory derived from ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country
codes (i.e., ccTLDs) were removed from the purview of the DNSO (which was
renamed the GNSO) and placed in a new "supporting organization," the
ccNSO.  All else remained in the GNSO.

As for whether there is an analogy with brands, I'll need to understand
what "relevant prior rights" (i.e., laws and/or treaties) are being invoked
in that analogy before I can respond.  Even assuming *arguendo* that there
is an analogy, the issue of rights to a string really only becomes relevant
when more than one party is interested in it or claims an interest or right
in it.  Which brings us right back to "the question of multiple uses."

Best regards,

Greg
 .

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 3:16 AM, cw at christopherwilkinson.eu <
cw at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

> Good morning:
>
> Allow me to respond briefly to Greg Shatan's comments, which evidently
> reflect his long experience with these matters:
>
>    1.
>
>    I think that the reference to RFC 3071
>    <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3071.txt> is not particularly helpful at
>    this stage. At that time, 17 years ago, John Klensin submitted this
>    'informational' text as 'reflexions' in his 'personal capacity'. In the
>    interim, ICANN has taken several decisions which - for better or worse –
>    depart from the advice of RFC 3071. We have move on.
>    2.
>
>    Granted that there are sometimes several meanings for certain words in
>    English, and probably in other languages as well, but this fact does not
>    justify ignoring relevant prior rights, not least for brands and
>    geographical names. Bearing in mind that the latter have usually been
>    present long before the former’s associated  usage of the same same string.
>
>    In any event, ICANN would, as before, have to deal with potential
>    conflicts between strings with more than one meaning, including several
>    geographical names among themselves. Meanwhile, a significant proportion of
>    geographical names do not experience multiple uses – even in English.
>
>    I am sure that the question of multiple uses can be resolved and need
>    not become a 'driver' of the eventual policy for geographical names.
>    3.
>
>    Regarding GNSO and gTLDs, it is indeed instructive to learn that all
>    sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept
>    within GNSO.
>
>    For present purposes, so be it.
>
>    But in that case, I would also argue - by analogy with brands – that
>    geographical names should benefit from protection in the interest of
>    predictability and transparency for individual users, in the locations,
>    economies and communities concerned.
>
> Regards to you all
>
> CW
>
>
>
> 2018-03-26 6:54 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:
>
>> With regard to point 3 ("Geographical names are not Generic in the usual
>> semantic or, indeed, ICANN sense. Nearly all of those names are specific to
>> places, cultures, regions, communities and their local economies. The fact
>> that GNSO has taken the lead in the PDP WT5, does not diminish in any way
>> the specific characteristics of geo-names."):
>>
>> We should avoid getting drawn into a policy conflict disguised as a
>> semantic argument.  The term "generic" as used in "generic TLDs" has long
>> since departed from any "semantic" meaning of generic.  Even as far back as
>> 2001, RFC 3071 recognized that "generic" was ambiguous when applied to
>> gTLDs, whic could be "generic" as in "purpose neutral" or "unbranded and
>> open for use in any way" or "generic" as in "purpose-specific" or "related
>> to a particular genus of registrants."  As a result of the 2012 New gTLD
>> round, we now have hundreds of gTLDs that are .Brands.  Brands are
>> conceptually and semantically the opposite of generic.  We have dozens of
>> TLDs being used as "geo-names."  We also have many that are "purpose
>> specific" and many that are open to use by all without any type of "genus"
>> implied or expressed.  I'm sure there are other types and distinctions to
>> be made, but ultimately these are all gTLDs.
>>
>> The same word or string can have multiple meanings.  In numerous cases,
>> the same string could be delegated and used as a generic, purpose-specific,
>> .Brand or geo-name gTLD, depending on the applicant's plans. We need to be
>> conservative with the idea that a string or word is inherently one thing or
>> another.  For instance, "tours" could be a .brand, a geo-name, a
>> purpose-specific gTLD or even a purpose-neutral gTLD.
>>
>> The GNSO's role here is not one where it has "taken the lead" as a
>> free-floating "fact" but one where it has that responsibility as a matter
>> of ICANN policy.  In that vein, this is not "PDP WT5"; this is a "work
>> track" within a GNSO Policy Development Process Working Group.  The GNSO
>> is a task-based entity, with that task being to manage the process of
>> developing the policy recommendations for gTLDs.  Anyone can participate in
>> that process.  It is irrelevant whether they are a member of (or a
>> stakeholder represented by) any GNSO Stakeholder Group or Constituency.
>>
>> That is not to say this is the only possible way in which ICANN could
>> have been or could be constituted.  Before there was a GNSO and a ccNSO,
>> there was a DNSO, which "advise[d] the ICANN Board on policy issues
>> relating to the domain name system (DNS) -- the system of names commonly
>> used to identify Internet locations and resources."  Some body could decide
>> to re-imagine this structure yet -- reconsider what is a gTLD and what is a
>> ccTLD (perhaps based on use and purpose than on the ISO 3166 two-letter
>> list), and whether other categories should be recognized aside from these
>> two.  But this body is not that body.  And this body has enough
>> complexities and distractions to complicate and delay our work without
>> getting into existential debates -- especially those that are firmly
>> outside our remit.
>>
>> It might be interesting to establish an unchartered discussion group to
>> have those existential debates.  However, it is the farthest thing from
>> interesting (not to mention, productive) to turn this Work Track into that
>> discussion group.  I strongly encourage us not to get drawn down that
>> rabbit-hole, which is in fact a rabbit-warren with a multitude of holes.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Christopher.
>>>
>>> Javier Rúa-Jovet
>>>
>>> +1-787-396-6511 <(787)%20396-6511>
>>> twitter: @javrua
>>> skype: javier.rua1
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:12 PM, "lists at christopherwilkinson.eu" <
>>> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear WT5 Participants:
>>>
>>>
>>> Further to the Wt5 meeting in San Juan on 14 March, this is just to
>>> recall the main points that I made during that discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. For the new gTLD PDP to move forward with a reasonable delay, we need
>>> a new geo-TLD policy now. It would not be a good idea to wait for, or to
>>> out-source to other external entities, although in due course, external
>>> contributions may become relevant.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2.    I suggested that WT5 would save time by discontinuing discussion
>>> about ISO 3166. That is an international standard for codes and names
>>> representing countries and their subdivisions. As such, it is a well
>>> codified sub-set of the generality of geographical names. The bottom line
>>> is that within the scope of ISO 3166, ICANN is bound to respect the
>>> international standard.
>>>
>>>
>>> 3.    It is also not advisable to pursue the idea that the 2012
>>> Applicant Guide Book (AGB) definition of geo-names is a relevant ‘default’.
>>> That text failed to address several classes of names that are of
>>> significant interest to user communities, a lacunae which gave rise to
>>> several disagreements and delays last time around. That should be corrected
>>> for the next round, as unambiguously as possible, in the interests of
>>> transparency and predictability for the individual users in the locations
>>> concerned.
>>>
>>>
>>> In that context, I regret that the WT5 Terms of Reference do not address
>>> those issues explicitly. They will now have to be addressed by WT5.
>>>
>>>
>>> 3. Geographical names are not Generic in the usual semantic or, indeed,
>>> ICANN sense. Nearly all of those names are specific to places, cultures,
>>> regions, communities and their local economies.
>>>
>>> The fact that GNSO has taken the lead in the PDP WT5, does not diminish
>>> in any way the specific characteristics of geo-names.
>>>
>>>
>>> The approach to geographical names requires a tailored approach to the
>>> evaluation and implementation of such applications, to which I shall return
>>> in due course as the WT5 agenda evolves.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>
>>> Christopher Wilkinson
>>>
>>>
>>> PS:     Resending, because the original message was sent from a non-WT5
>>> registered  address. Apologies for any duplication.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180402/512425da/attachment-0001.html>