[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Tue Aug 7 16:53:38 UTC 2018

Christopher,

You can’t just throw the word “politically” into the middle of an
unsupported claim and expect to be persuasive (or even understood).  I
don’t see any reason or reasoning where would find “all geographic names”
to be subject to any rules, much less preventative rules.  Quite the
contrary.  Can you explain your use of “politically” and what that
implies?  Where do you see politics coming into the ICANN policy-making
process, and which politics are you referring to?

Curative procedures have been successfully invoked since the dawn of ICANN
(and long, long before, in a multitude of settings) to allow someone to
assert a claim against another party’s actions on the basis of agreed-upon
standards.  To write off the entire concept as “unsuitable,” again without
support, seems both extreme and premature.  New curative procedures were
created for the 2012 round, and we could adapt those or create something
different if we wanted to.  On a policy level, there’s absolutely no reason
for curative procedures to be “unsuitable.”  Indeed, for reasons I very
recently stated, they are far more suitable than preventative rights for
the vast majority of terms with geographic meanings.  Helping them work
appropriately is an implementation-level concern that should not impede
good policy-making.

As a group trying to reach consensus, we should not put all of our eggs
into the one basket of preventative measures — no matter how much some
participants want us to do so.  I understand the allure of preventative
processes over curative processes — you don’t need to watch anything, you
don’t need to initiate anything, you don’t need to prove anything, and you
don’t even need to explain anything.  It’s a completely one-sided approach
— which is good for one-sided, slam-dunk situations.  Conversely, they are
not particularly good where there are two sides to the story.  Perhaps
there is a concern that in a “curative” process over terms with geographic
meanings, the “objectors” will not be able to succeed very often — that
often there really is no basis for a claim.  If that is the case, it is
even more critical that we identify and agree upon the bases for these
claims — whether they are exercised preventatively or curatively.  We can’t
put (or keep) a preventative privilege in place without clear-cut reasons
that this privilege exists, and clear-cut reasons that the claim must be
granted preventative status.

Preventative rights are equivalent to “guilty until proven innocent,”
except that there’s no forum for such proof — it is entirely at the
discretion of the privilege-holder.  Curative rights, on the other hand,
are “innocent until proven guilty,” with a forum and a process for that
determination to be made by an uninterested entity/person(s).  I tend to
prefer “innocent until proven guilty” as a general concept.

Best regards,

Greg

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:22 AM lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <
lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

> Dear Greg:
>
> I expect that we shall find that, politically, all geographical names will
> be subject to preventative rules, at least in the first instance.
>
> The existing 'curative' procedures appear to me to be quite unsuitable for
> global application at the level of disagregation that we are currently
> considering.
>
> Regards
>
> Christopher
>
>
>
> El 7 de agosto de 2018 a las 7:46 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> escribió:
>
> All,
>
> Carlos wrote:
>
> I just don't agree that the sole recommendation of WT5 that is going to be
> measure is a negative one: to restrict delegation of most geographic names.
> In my view recommendations should be framed in a positive manner, if
> possible.
>
> This reminded me that we have so far talked almost exclusively about what
> are generally called "preventive" processes (reserve lists, permission
> requirements, blocking lists, etc.), and very little about what are
> generally called "curative" processes (objections, dispute resolution
> processes, challenge processes, etc.).  By doing so, we've taken half the
> tools out of the toolkit.
>
> I just finished working on the reconvened IGO-INGO Preventive Rights WG
> where we were dealing (at this point) with reserving/restricting national
> Red Cross/Red Crescent society names.  In this case, a preventive rights
> approach made sense -- the names of the various national societies are
> essentially unique, identified only with that one entity, third party uses
> are almost certainly done in bad faith and with bad intent, and there's no
> real underlying policy disagreement.  In some cases (e.g., name collisions,
> certain reserved names) there is also a strong technical component.  This
> is how preventive rights have generally been used in ICANN policy -- for
> "slam-dunk" cases.
>
> There are few, if any, "slam-dunk" cases in our work.  A good case can be
> made for 2-letter letter-letter combinations.  Perhaps a good case can be
> made for some of the remaining classifications in this first set or
> potential recommendations.  However, as we move "down the list", so to
> speak, we get further away from "slam-dunk" situations.  We could
> potentially make more headway on some of the classifications of names if we
> considered "curative" processes, instead of being so intensely focused on
> "preventive" rights.  This tends to turn our discussions into "all or
> nothing" choices -- but this is a false menu, since there are other options
> aside from the binary "all/nothing" that should be on the menu.
>
> Let's keep this in mind as we move forward.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:34 PM Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
> I agree with Paul and think we should declare agreement where we have it,
> and build on that to find other agreement down the line.  The process is
> supposed to involve incremental steps and building blocks along the way,
> and that is how we will eventually arrive at a consensus.  To take the
> “nothing until everything” approach will keep us spinning our wheels
> indefinitely, cause confusion, and risks unexpected results, which is in no
> one’s interest.
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
> On Aug 6, 2018, at 2:16 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com> wrote:
>
> I’m a little concerned with the “Nothing is agreed until everything is
> agreed” approach.  This isn’t a contract negotiation, it is a consensus
> building exercise.  If we have to wait until every topic has been discussed
> and we think we have 100% agreement on all topics before we take a
> consensus call on individual topics, this WG will never find an end point.
>
> Best,
> Paul
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> *On
> Behalf Of *lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson
> *Sent:* Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM
> *To:* Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus
> Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
>
>
> Dear Co-Leads and Martin:
>
> I disagree with the method proposed.
>
> 1. It is premature to start consensus calls on certain restricted topics
> when other more critical topics have not yet been discussed.
>
> 2.  Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
>
> Regards
>
> CW
>
>
>
>
>
> El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 21:06 Martin Sutton <
> martin at brandregistrygroup.org> escribió:
>
> Hi Christopher,
>
> In order to progress the building of the Initial Report, the agenda is
> designed to focus on how we will achieve this and begin to gather
> recommendations where we find consensus. Item 4 was raised on the last call
> and members were requested to continue discussions over the email list,
> although this has been somewhat quiet probably due to holiday periods.
>
> We encourage you to use the email list for elaborating on non-AGB
> categories, this will then help towards further discussions on the call. By
> experience of the discussions relating to non-capital cities, please
> provide a sound argument/rationale for any suggestions for the group to
> consider, rather than simply stating a request.
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> Martin
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On 6 Aug 2018, at 15:25, lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <
> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
>
> Dear Co-Leads:  May I request that point 4 of the proposed agenda be moved
> up to point 1.
>
> Some participants, including myself, have only persevered with WT5
> in-order to discuss the non-AGB terms.
>
> These include :
>
> -  all other geographical terms
>
> -  geographical indications
>
> -  several groups of regional, cultural, economic and linguistic names.
>
> Thankyou and regards
>
> Christopher Wilkinson
>
> El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 14:42 Martin Sutton <
> martin at brandregistrygroup.org> escribió:
> Dear Work Track members,
>
> Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8
> August at 13:00 UTC:
>
> 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates
> 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan
> 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names
> 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms
> 5. AOB
>
> On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed
> at wrapping up WT5’s work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of
> September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to
> ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work
> of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for
> delivery of the PDP’s Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
>
> As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series
> of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5’s Initial
> Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of
> recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft
> recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work
> Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft
> recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will
> officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday’s
> call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be
> followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:
> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf
>  [gnso.icann.org]
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472632128&sdata=me4M2xocdDENZhUf8U%2FfsplZO3q09h%2FivOZ%2FOORwgPE%3D&reserved=0>
> .
>
> If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an
> apology, please email gnso-secs at icann.org.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> WT5 Co-Leads
> Annebeth Lange
> Javier Rua
> Olga Cavalli
> Martin Sutton
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely
> for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not
> the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message
> has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by
> reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are
> not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
> dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is
> strictly prohibited.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this
> message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it.
> Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable
> privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of
> the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be
> used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties
> under applicable tax laws and regulations.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180807/7635f33d/attachment-0001.html>