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

Wed Aug 8 12:14:38 UTC 2018

Javier,

Can you please refresh my (our) recollection of that fact pattern? Thanks!

Greg

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 7:15 AM Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thx Greg!
>
> What would you say to my “Apache Helicopter” fact pattern?
>
>
> Javier Rúa-Jovet
>
> +1-787-396-6511
> twitter: @javrua
> skype: javier.rua1
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
>
>
> On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:33 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Alexander,
>
> Your anger and hurt are heard. Thanks for expressing your feelings so
> directly.
>
> Let's turn to the facts.
>
> There's no "infringement" here. Overheated rhetoric won't make it so.
> Words can have more than one meaning.  If a registry sets up a .brick TLD
> for use by the brick industry, it does not "infringe" on any right that
> Brick, New Jersey has.  There is simply no general principle that supports
> the idea that a "geo use" is a "better" use of a string with multiple
> meanings than a "non geo use."
>
> There are no "vultures" to be protected from.  They are no more real than
> Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster or the monster under the bed when you were 6
> years old.
>
> Challenge processes (I don't want to use the "C___ R_____" term you have a
> knee-jerk reaction to) are a well-accepted method, in ICANN and everywhere
> else. Access to a form of due process does not translate to "anything goes"
> or "big money wins."  Quite the opposite -- it is a way to arrive at a fair
> result.  It may translate to "Geos don't always win" -- but that's
> completely appropriate.
>
> I can't speak for NCSG or for ALAC, but in my view from an end-user
> perspective, a "geo use" is only one possible use of a multi-meaning
> string.  Many more end-users may be interested in a .coupon that is used
> for getting and using coupons that a .coupon that is used for Coupon,
> Pennsylvania.  There is no inherent preference for "geo uses."  "City
> constituencies" have the right to apply for appropriate gTLD strings,
> whether it's .Budapest or .Bucharest or .Bridgeport.  Nothing we do here
> will change that.
>
> As we move toward a series of consensus calls, it is particularly
> concerning to see Challenge Processes rejected out of hand and with such
> divisive rhetoric.  But it's better to know now if challenge processes can
> be part of a consensus recommendation from this group.  I would hope the
> answer would be "yes" But, if the answer is "no" -- as this "call to arms"
> suggests -- then we will have to move forward under those circumstances.  I
> don't think that will be helpful in reaching consensus on any
> recommendation, even some of the so-called "easy" ones.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:14 PM Alexander Schubert <
> alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Curative Rights"?
>>
>> Geo communities won't even know that vultures and brands are infringing
>> on their identities. Especially not once we go into continuous application
>> mode in a few years.
>>
>> GAC members should be VERY ALARMED. "Curative Rights" is a thinly veiled
>> eulogy for "anything goes" and "big money wins". The rights of geo
>> communities and their constituents will be TRAMPLED on.
>>
>> In the 1600s and 1700s Europeans set out to stake claims in every corner
>> of the world. Unchallenged. Their prey being vulnerable and without
>> defense. Colonialism! It wiped out populations of ENTIRE CONTINENTS  (e.g.
>> North America).
>>
>> What is being peddled here is just the same in the age of claiming DNS
>> land on top level:
>> Venture Capital will marry Vulture Culture - together they will colonize
>> the geo-TLD world. To make big bucks - on the back of vulnerable
>> communities.
>>
>> Europe, Asia, South America and Africa should stand up to cyber
>> colonialism. It cannot be that "their lands" are brute-force taken AGAIN.
>>
>> Sizeable cities are as important (and their geo gTLDs as impacting for
>> their city constituents) as small countries. I would wish we collectively
>> mature up and recognize that truth. "Curative Rights" ain't enough. Where
>> are ALAC or the NCSG? It would be THEIR job to defend city constituencies.
>> Do they even know what's playing out here?
>>
>> Btw: I wish we could stop calling it "governmental support". For many
>> that sounds like FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Nothing could be more wrong. It's the
>> CITY'S representatives who are tasked to provide support. They know the
>> needs of their city best - they have been ELECTED to represent the city's
>> constituent's interests.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Alexander
>>
>>
>> Sent from my Samsung device
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>> Date: 8/7/18 20:02 (GMT+02:00)
>> To: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <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.
>>
>> I agree with Greg and would add that many of us would be far less
>> resistant to the concept of “geo names” if the underlying right/privilege
>> provided was a curative right (rather than preventative).  For some, the
>> biggest problem we have with “geo names” is the presumption of restrictions
>> (in this case a “veto power” to a single actor) so moving discussion
>> towards curative rights could be a very useful way of working toward an
>> ultimate consensus.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On Aug 7, 2018, at 9:53 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180808/a0ec64d0/attachment-0001.html>