[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Alexander Schubert
alexander at schubert.berlin
Wed Aug 8 13:48:06 UTC 2018
Hi group, dear Jon,
Agreed: from a theoretical standpoint a geo-community COULD object!
The elephant in the room right now are cities. All other 2012 AGB geo policies have been discussed and agreed on. What currently remains “open” are the treatment of cities (especially SIZEABLE cities) and geo-names that have NOT been touched by the 2012 AGB. Presumably of these both silos way over 95% of actual applications will be city names! So it would make great sense if we could clarify how to treat cities.
I have worked with several cities in the 2012 round. I have also been involved in community objections (on both ends). A “brand” is well equipped for these “curative right measures”: they have funds ready available, they have in-house legal counsel and brand management but most importantly they have a “brand baby-sitter” like Mark Monitor: highly specialized consultants who keep an eye on ICANN and have the companies brands on watch lists, and will be able to recommend defense measures to the brand!
If you ever worked with a community (such as the gay community) or a city (like Berlin – which btw was set up as community applicant with broad participation of local constituencies already in 2005 and applied for as such) then you would know: A city isn’t equipped to “object”. Even if you would identify the 10 most likely responsible individuals within the city Government and make them PERSONALLY aware (not just a letter or an email): they just wouldn’t “get” the ramifications! Way over half of Americans (for example; the same for Europeans) don’t even really know what “new gTLDs” are, or if they are in the know: they have remotely heard about it – but no clue how important these might become in the future. Just imagine any cityname.com domain was available in 1993 (all of them were available), and you would have approached a city major’s office asking them to “secure it” – before somebody else would do? Or to “object” to a registration by a third party? They would have rolled eyes and just remain inactive. Fast forward to 2018 every single city would just DIE to lay their hands on their city.com domain name to conduct their official city marketing.
We here at ICANN are lightyears ahead – and suffer from tunnel vision. Additionally cities do not employ the services of the Mark Monitors of this world, they have limited funds (none of which are earmarked for “brand defense”), they have no in-house expertise.
In Douglas Adams “Hitchhiker to the Galaxy” an alien species had planned an intergalactic highway – with the earth being smack in the way (and subjected to be destroyed by explosion). In order to alarm the humans on Earth a warning had been posted in advance: to give them ample time to evacuate mankind. Never mind that mankind wouldn’t be able to evacuate themselves; the warning was posted on Alpha Centauri: the nearest star. Well: no earthling ever WAS on Alpha Centauri. The whole thing obviously ended in the earth being destroyed – with just one man (Arthur Dent, the main character of the book) being ACCIDENTALLY saved.
ICANN is behaving like that alien species. “Warning signs” will be posted – and of course being ignored. “Worlds” (and city namespaces are actually worlds) will be pulverized. Is it that what we stand for?
If somebody wanted to build a highway through earth or my city (virtually spoken) I as a citizen would wish that my elected city representatives had to positively AFFIRM such action; to make sure it is conducted in a way that benefits ME: the Internet user! Especially the NONCOMMERCIAL Internet User! And that NOT “commercial interests” of name grabbers or “brands” are destroying my virtual city equivalent – or abusing it as “investment vehicle” which are poised to be setting policy priorities that benefit shareholders and not city constituents.
Objections work fine for “brands”. But this can’t be the way how city-namespaces are being safe-guarded. It’s a colonial overreach and flat-out abuse. ICANN shouldn’t stand for such measures/policies.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett
Sent: Mittwoch, 8. August 2018 15:41
To: Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com>
Cc: 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.
And that is why we have a community objection process . . .
On Aug 8, 2018, at 5:23 AM, Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com <mailto:javrua at gmail.com> > wrote:
Sure!
“Thanks Robin!
To continue this interesting conversation, a question (anyone can of course chip in) how could this hypothetical be solved preemptively or curatively (a posteriori): What if 1) an “Apache Helicopter Corp.”, a company that incidentally has registered US trademarks for the name “Apache Helicopter”, applied for a “.apache” string; 2) the US government never objected (or paid any attention) to said application, and the string was delegated, 3) yet a representative of the several federally recognized Apache Tribes, a few months later found about this and objected to this “appropriation of their cultural identity-the name of their people”?
PS: My heart wants the Apaches to prevail... “
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511
twitter: @javrua
skype: javier.rua1
https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 8:14 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> > wrote:
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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 < <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson
Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM
To: Martin Sutton < <mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org> martin at brandregistrygroup.org>
Cc: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> 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 < <mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org> 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, <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> 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 < <mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org> 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].
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> 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
<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
<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> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
<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> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_____
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
<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> 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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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/20180808/82d20f73/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list