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

Liz Williams liz.williams at auda.org.au
Mon Apr 9 23:25:38 UTC 2018


Hello Annebeth

I’ve been thinking about this in more detail and am wondering whether we are getting stuck on something quite simple?  We have, as we all know, maintained a distinction between what ccTLD managers do to manage two letter codes that relate to their country/identity/presence and the terms and conditions for which they do that which ranges from nothing to quite detailed Sponsorship Agreements with clear obligations and responsibilities.

We also know the blurring between a two letter code used by countries and a top level domain operator is now pretty much complete.  We run the spectrum of re-purposed country codes (tv, la, co as examples) which really don’t reflect their original idea (which is fine) and we have country code managers who now straddle the ccNSO and are also contracted parties within the GNSO Registry Stakeholder Group.

I think it’s likely time that we approached the reality of the “contracts” for top level domain operators from a different perspective to help us resolve some key policy questions that clear some roadblocks and disagreements.  For example, if we assumed that all contracts for top level domains take pretty much the same form, what would that mean for an application process, an evaluation process and a compliance regime?  If we continue to assume that a baseline contract is published at the commencement of any application process, so that applicants know what they are getting in to, we can perhaps think on how we address some varied “protections” which seem to be required to reach policy consensus.

Would some of our concerns about “limiting” types or styles of applications be addressed by thinking more clearly around a baseline registry agreement?  Some of this was attempted in the Public Interest Commitment (PICs) in the 2012 but I wonder how effective that has been?  If we had a set of policy principles for contracting which is consistent with ICANN legacy contracts, Mission and Core Values and then simplicity of accountability, we might go some way towards a more nuanced response to the opportunities presented by geographic names being used as top level domain labels.

Liz

….
Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs
.au Domain Administration Ltd
M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757
E: liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au>

Important Notice
This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

On 5 Apr 2018, at 5:31 pm, Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange at norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange at norid.no>> wrote:

Hei Alexander

This is an interesting discussion. Greg earlier referred to RFC 3071 from 2011, which raises some of the same questions. Before GNSO and ccNSO there was DNSO, that handled it all. However, what was raised at ICANN 61 at the WT5 meeting was that especially the different variations of country & territory names, including ISO 3166 3-letter codes, and whatever were excluded in the end from the 2012 AGB, were neither ccTLDs nor gTLDs, but “something in between” where the question was where the underlying policy authority was. And that the basic difference is that those TLDs that identify a country should be under the local community authority.

So, the key element is how these country names could fit into a gTLD process without having to fall under the global policy authority and superseding the local policy authority. This was made very clear by several participants during the meeting in San Juan.

In my view, it is not a question of dissolving neither GNSO nor ccNSO, but whether it is inside our scope in WT 5 to solve this question or not. As I see it we can which names are gTLDs and which are not and under which conditions, for example support/non-objection, but not to make it to “something else”, to a group that we do not have today.

Kind regards
Annebeth

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>>
Reply-To: "alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>" <alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>>
Date: Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 20:49
To: '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] The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments

Hi Timo,

Just for clarification: So you think a .city should be a ccTLD as well? A .state (e.g. .florida) as well?

Why don’t we simply dissolve the ccNSO and end the artificial separation between ccTLDs and gTLDs – and just have ONE class of TLDs? Would make it MUCH easier! It seems you are calling for that, right? Dissolving the ccNSO?

How can the harmonization of ccTLDs and gTLDs be applied for at ICANN? What would be the steps?

Thanks,

Alexander




From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Timo Võhmar
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 5:12 PM
To: 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] The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments

Hello

I support Cristopher's points

The separation between generic and country code TLDs is not the question of semantics - it is about policy ie who is in control of how the TLD is operated whether it is local internet community or international community (ICANN). So from that point of view anything that stands for and represents country names must be in control of these local communities. That in general goes for geo-names as well - in my view interests of local internet community should override the corporate interests. But as the geo-names were already released under GNSO policy we should work around that to try to find a solution that works for internet communities and if no claim is made for corporate or international/generic interests.

Thank you,
Timo Võhmar
Estonian Internet


On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>> wrote:
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<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<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
Cc: cw at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto: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 AMlists 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
 .



_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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/20180409/8c8a0471/attachment-0001.html>


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