[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Geographic terms: additional categories

Fri Apr 20 06:05:16 UTC 2018

On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 at 22:41, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
wrote:

> I would like to support Jon’s rationale!
>
> Let’s look at what we try to “prevent” or “protect”:
>
> A geo entity (mountain, river, city, state, continent, whatever) doesn’t
> require “protection” just because it exists – only if it is RELEVANT to a
> substantial group of people. Just because there is a “New River” in the
> U.S. – nobody would assume that a generic TLD “.new” should require ANY
> approval by ANY authority. No river needs “protection” per se. Only if
> there are actual people who benefit from the protection – or would be hurt
> if the protection was inexistent. Not PLACES need to be protected – but THE
> PEOPLE affiliated with these places.
>
> Jon is right: We need to balance between REAL WORLD PROTECTION NEEDS of
> groups of people – and the fact that many geo terms are very generic.
>
> And precisely that’s what makes it so difficult. What is relevant enough
> for a sizable enough group of people to allow them a “veto” (being it
> implicit or explicit: requiring a letter of non-objection or granting them
> objection rights).
>
> With that we are back to the “beauty contest” – which we wanted to avoid!
> Who is going to decide whether some geo entity is really so IMPORTANT that
> the affiliated people should have a right to objection – or even should be
> asked for a letter of non-objection.
>
> Another important item is prioritization: Should the world renowned
> capital of Germany have to provide letters of non-objection from 10,000
> people nests in the USA? What if the nest doesn’t react? We actually
> approached all of them (there is a bunch in the U.S.) back in 2006 /2007 –
> they had ZERO desire to “protect” the name BERLIN for themselves – but
> getting actual letters: why would they create one? Imagine you need a
> letter from a small Chinese province, or a tiny Russian town: They do not
> even speak English. They might not be ABLE to provide such legal binding
> document without the consent of some “state” or even the central
> Government. A big huge mess! What about a city with 2,000 inhabitants that
> accidentally has an identical name? There must be some threshold.
>
> Thanks Jon for bringing it up.
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Jon Nevett
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 19, 2018 4:18 PM
> *To:* Liz Williams <liz.williams at auda.org.au>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Geographic terms: additional
> categories
>
>
>
> I agree Liz.
>
>
>
> Also, let's take some real examples of the dictionary term issue we need
> to solve. Apparently, two of the oldest rivers in the world (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_by_age) are the New River in
> the US and the Save river in Africa.
>
>
>
> Applicants for .NEW or .SAVE undoubtedly would not be applying for such
> names due to the rivers nor would they intend that the use of the TLDs be
> related to the rivers at all.  Should we really have a policy that requires
> a letter of non-opposition by the relevant government for these names?
> Should the US government and/or the States of North Carolina, Virginia, or
> West Virginia have veto rights over whether .NEW should exist?  Should
> Zimbabwe or Mozambique have veto rights over .SAVE?  .NEW and .SAVE are not
> edge cases.  There are hundreds of these kinds of terms that also happen to
> be geographic names.  There is a Coffee City in Texas; Bath in the UK; etc.
>
>
> Perhaps we should retain an expert in toponymy to educate us on the
> prevalence of these terms.
>
>
>
> I do agree with Jorge that we need a framework that provides
> predictability, but that framework shouldn't be just giving veto rights to
> governments in all cases, which is what requiring letters of non-opposition
> would do in fact.  We have to come up with a policy that takes into account
> generic/dictionary words that also happen to be geographic terms and the
> intended uses of such proposed TLDs.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 19, 2018, at 4:58 AM, Liz Williams <liz.williams at auda.org.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello Jorge
>
>
>
> I really appreciated your insights.  One thing I think needs further
> exploration is the notion of "interested applicants and the affected
> communities (which normally will be represented by different Government
> levels.”
>
>
>
> I don’t think this is true as much as I would like it to be so.  I think,
> in many jurisdictions, there are direct and very evident tensions between
> communities and their “governments” and we can see plenty of examples of
> that in global real politick.  It is awkward indeed that ICANN new TLD
> evaluators *might *sometimes be in the business of making decisions about
> affected communities and applicants for new top level domains where
> governments may have explicit interests that are in direct conflict.  The
> .africa example is a case in point.
>
>
>
> What I don’t want to see is that a legitimate applicant for a top level
> domain would be punished/evaluated negatively because a government entity
> doesn’t agree with its position/entitlement/raison d’être.   My “freedom of
> expression” colleagues will articulate these arguments better than I will
> do but we need to be aware that governments and communities’ interests do
> not necessarily intersect.
>
>
>
> I am looking forward to hearing other views from WT5 members.
>
>
>
> 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 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.
>
>
I am of the same view that @Liz expansion of restrictions on what
> candidates may apply is a negative idea.  Instead, we must work to expand
> the space of domain names according to end users.  I think it is a
> democratic way to operate
>
> On 19 Apr 2018, at 5:05 pm, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear all
>
>
>
> If I may chime in… the 2012 round has shown that some names with
> geographic significance which were left out of the 2012 AGB rules on “geo
> names” have created and are still creating issues.
>
>
>
> What is needed in my opinion is a framework that covers such names (to
> what level of granularity is something we would need to decide on) in order
> to create predictability and a fair say for the interested applicants and
> the affected communities (which normally will be represented by different
> Government levels).
>
>
>
> As I have mentioned before, according to the available data (for instance
> the data circulated prior to the webinar organized in April 2017) the 2012
> AGB requirement of a “non-objection letter” by the relevant public
> authorities worked well, as it created a good mix of incentives for
> applicants and relevant authorities to arrive at mutually accepted
> solutions for the delegation of the strings.
>
>
>
> This by no means implies to take such names out of the pool of potential
> TLD. It just contributes in creating a framework for getting the right
> people at the table before the application is submitted and preempts many
> potential ex-post conflicts…
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Javier Rua
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 19. April 2018 03:35
> *An:* Liz Williams <liz.williams at auda.org.au>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Geographic terms: additional
> categories
>
>
>
> Great discussion, Liz & Renata.
>
>
>
> Javier Rúa-Jovet
>
>
>
> +1-787-396-6511
>
> twitter: @javrua
>
> skype: javier.rua1
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 18, 2018, at 9:31 PM, Liz Williams <liz.williams at auda.org.au>
> wrote:
>
> Hello Renata
>
>
>
> You have raised some interesting wrinkles.  The first is we mustn’t
> conflate the application for a domain name with intellectual property
> rights.  My IP lawyer friends will have different views I am sure, but, a
> new top level domain can exist quite happily alongside any array of IP
> rights which may exist at the top level of the domain name system and at
> the second level in domain name registrations.  For example, to use Jeff’s
> idea from this morning, .mars can exist alongsidewww.mars.com alongside
> www.marstheplanet.com and Jacqueline Mars (the woman whose family the
> company is named after).  The issue is to be sure that consumers are not
> confused and that bad faith use is not allowed…
>
>
>
> And to your second point, communities are not disadvantaged if they don’t
> apply for a domain name.  Let’s use Murrumbidgee as the example.  It may be
> that a community or group or geographic area are not interested and find
> different ways of expressing themselves on-line.  That is fine.  What isn’t
> fine is if they are constrained BEFORE they have even have a chance to
> decide.  It is always annoying and expensive and time consuming if there is
> contention for a name…that is why there must be simple mechanisms to
> resolve that contention.
>
>
>
> And to your last point.  I think this issue is directly within scope for
> the consideration of this group.  Governments have responsibilities around
> the setting of and implementation of public policy in their jurisdictions.
> However, in the context of new top level domain policy processes,
> government stakeholders are part of a much broader constellation of people
> whose views need to be considered…and we don’t need an international treaty
> for that to happen.
>
>
>
> I hope that we can talk about this area in much more detail within the
> group.
>
>
>
> Best wishes.
>
>
>
> 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 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 19 Apr 2018, at 11:16 am, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Liz
>
> This is a very important discussion and thanks for framing it simply.
> I am guessing the issue about the Aboriginal community being able to
> register the name is whether or not they will be competing against
> another company who trademarked that name and who could possibly sue
> them.
> And maybe they don't even register the domain name but create a
> handcraft company with the river name.
> In that sense, it is not about limiting the registration of a name but
> ensuring protection for communities which are left vulnerable if
> exclusive registration rights and associated IP rights are given to
> whoever first registers the name.
>
> But this is probably out of the scope of WT5 since it deals with
> governmental objections and not unrecognized minority communities or
> treaties without a broader international intergovernmental acceptance.
>
> Best,
>
> Renata
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Liz Williams <liz.williams at auda.org.au>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hello everyone
>
> I wanted to refer back to our call this morning (Australia time) to provide
> some more examples about the nature of generic words that are also used for
> important geographic terms.  I used three examples this morning which
> relate
> to our major river systems which is not dissimilar to the Amazon River
> example where the rivers flow through different states.  In my example, the
> Murray, Darling & Murrumbidgee rivers are all significant geographic
> features.  The first two are named after people; the third an Aboriginal
> word in the Wiradjuri language.  The Murrumbidgee River flows through
> several distinct areas of Aboriginal land and forms part of the Murray
> River
> system.
>
> We could extend the analysis by including Mount Kosciuszko National Park
> which includes our highest mountain (and from which the Murrumbidgee
> flows.)
> Again, named after a real person (whose name likely doesn’t fit as a good
> TLD label!) but, nonetheless, is one of our most significant geographic
> identifiers.
>
> IF we were to conclude that a broader bucket of geographic identifiers
> (like
> rivers and places) were to somehow be constrained/limited/banned what
> purpose would that serve?  For example, if the Aboriginal communities that
> live along the river and identify with that region, why wouldn’t they be
> welcome to apply for the name?  The same could be said of landowners (like
> I
> was), tourist enterprises, naturalists, national parks, might also want to
> create a new “community” top level domain that they can use.  The same
> could
> be said of the Murray/Darling examples.
>
> There are many many other examples that this group could come up with which
> shows the way in which humans name geographic features that are intrinsic
> parts of their culture.  From my personal perspective expanding any
> limitations on what applicants can apply for is a negative idea.  Instead,
> we need to work towards enabling the expansion of the domain name space to
> suit end users.
>
> And most importantly, we need simple steps (I think we need some schematic
> to show how this could work in practical evaluation) to understand how to
> deal with contention and to resolve that contention efficiently and fairly.
>
> 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 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-- 
PaBLo Marshall
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180420/182fd7c9/attachment-0001.html>