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

Alexander Schubert alexander at schubert.berlin
Wed Apr 4 13:07:36 UTC 2018


Hi WT5,

 

Greg makes a valid point here:
Obviously a place like Qatar, London or Israel are relevant and important enough internationally as well as locally to be protected globally for the local residents. But then there are places that do not even HAVE “Internet”, no industry whatsoever and no recognition internationally not even nationally. A small hill for example. Or a small stream.

The big question here is: how to distinguish? In the past we tried to apply ISO lists – with mixed success. 

But this is probably irrelevant for the names that have been banned in the 2012 round: ISO 3166 Alpha-3 and territory names. These are impacting enough to deserve extra protection by requiring a letter of non-objection by the Government! 

 

So we have TWO different problem clouds:

1.       Names that have been unavailable in the 2012 round: ISO 3166 Alpha-3 and territory names!

2.       Small, unknown, un-impacting geo-places (small mountain, small stream) around the world

 

I think both need to be dealt with separately.

 

Thanks,

 

Alexander

 

 

 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 3:41 PM
To: lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
Cc: cw at christopherwilkinson.eu; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments

 

A string may be used as a brand, a geographical name, a generic term, a purpose-specific term and a surname, among other things.

 

Whether it is “primarily” one of those things may or may not be a relevant or workable test or factor.  And how one determines the primary  use is open to debate. Declaring that if some patch of dirt or pool of water has been named X, that X is always “primarily” a geographical name, regardless of other uses and factors, is a conclusion, not a basis.

 

Invoking “transparency and predictability” as a mantra doesn’t make it any more reasoned.  I don’t think there’s a “transparency” issue here at all, but since we all support transparency (except, it appears, when it comes to who owns a domain name) it must be good, right?  And why the “transparency and predictability” needs of the occupants of a tiny village trump the transparency and predictability of millions of consumers is still a mystery.  It represents a dirt-based physical nationalism that is very much at odds with the border less reality and future of the Internet, though experiencing a disturbing resurgence at the moment in the U.S. and elsewhere. You can build a wall at the border or around a patch of dirt; that doesn’t mean that you put that same wall around every top level domaIn name that happens to be used as a geographical name somewhere.

 

Greg

 

 

 

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 3:04 AM lists at christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>  Wilkinson <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> > wrote:

Dear Greg, Dear WT5 participants:

I consider that a geographical name pertains primarily and in the first instance to the internet users (present and future) in the location concerned.

This in the interests of transparency and predictability for individual users among those communities and economies.

Regards

CW 

 

El 2 de abril de 2018 a las 19:32 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> > escribió:

Kris,

 

What is your basis for thinking that Geonames takes precedence over IP? I’d like to understand that thought process, and see how broadly you think this “precedence” should be applied (and why).

 

Thanks!

 

Greg

 

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:49 AM Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k at gmail.com> > wrote:

Just a thought:

 

Why don’t we just ensure country codes with ISO alpha 3 is retained for countries plain and simple. There are countries where even the alpha-2 are not within an independent hands. ICANN is still working trying to release them from certain people, but still no way out. So a proposal is all the ISO alpha 3 are allotted within bounds that these could be used as alternate to alpha 2 for countries. That could clear the air for government and so on. So ISO alpha 3 can still be under GNSO per say. We do not move them to cctld.Just a thought. 

 

Then we could look at brands etc., based on IP or a strong case where it geoname attached to a country language, or culture but without also destroying a model that would be on the onus of the party requesting such Domain. Since we are talking Geonames. I think Geo takes precedence over IP but we may need to establish a strict way of engaging this as it could backfire as well. 

 

My two cents. But still it’s a double sided cutting knife. 

 





On Apr 2, 2018, at 08:35, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> > wrote:

 

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

 .

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180404/e10b6f26/attachment.html>


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