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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Tue Aug 21 23:43:13 UTC 2018 

Jorge,

This is an incorrect description of the current system, which seems to have
no basis in fact.  I just re-read Section 2.2.1 of the AGB to see if I was
missing something.  I found nothing.  However, I do think your email does
suggest intriguing possibilities for how things might work — it just
doesn’t reflect how things actually work now.

The AGB doesn’t require a government to explain the basis for their letter
of government support or non-objection, or the source of their power to
grant it or deny it. It is entirely up to the “relevant government or
public authority” to determine whether it has the right to respond, and if
they think they can, they will.  I don’t recall a single government or
“relevant authority” turning away a request for support or non-objection
because they seemed to be the right authority but in fact were not
empowered to consider the request.

You describe a situation that probably doesn’t exist —  a local authority
with “no rights, policies whatsoever” that is thus helpless to respond.
That seems at odds with being an “authority,” whether established by rule
of law or by brute force.  If the local authority feels it can respond, it
will respond.  In the far-fetched situation where a local authority cannot
consider a letter of support based on the framework of the country’s laws,
then they are simply not the “relevant” authority and they become
irrelevant. A higher level of government almost certainly has that
authority.  For your hypothetical to work, we would need to find a country
where the “authorities” at every level felt powerless to respond.  I doubt
this exists.

On top of this, you speculate that there is a “law” an authority would
“break” if provided a letter of support unless there were “rights and
Olivier” that “allowed” them to do so.  What specific “law” do you think
they would be “breaking”?  What “framework” do you think they would have to
“abide by”?  (Real world examples, please.)

You also get the basic concept upside-down when you speculate that an
authority without rights or policies would somehow be forced to respond
that they have no objection.  What power do they have to formally issue a
letter of non-objection?  None.  If the authority doesn’t have the power to
object that will not get you a letter of non-objection.  The authority
simply has no authority to respond either way, and the applicant will be
stuck without a letter, until it finds the “relevant authority.”

Where a local authority is “allowed” to respond (which I suspect is
virtually 100% of the time), I highly doubt it comes from specific “rights,
policies or whatsoever,” about TLD support letters. More likely it comes
from some more general law or laws empowering the local authority.  So, we
are unlikely to find the specific law you believe exists and that a local
authority would have to “follow” when providing or not providing the letter
of support. Essentially, it is at the discretion of the relevant authority,
on any basis that they see fit.

It’s only slightly less far-fetched to suggest that a government’s action
relating to a letter request would be subject to review.  Hypothetically,
perhaps.  But since there is no requirement that the government explain the
basis for their authority or the basis for their decisions, there is
unlikely to be any basis for review — unless one challenges the basic
authority of the government to govern as it sees fit.  Not likely to happen.

So there really is no principle of “subsidiarity” here — except the
principle that ICANN and every other possible applicant for a relevant
string should be subsidiary to every government and relevant authority, and
to decisions made at their sole discretion.  If there is any “beauty” in
the current system, it is in the eye of the beholder — and the beholder
better like the exercise of unfettered discretion.

I’m quite surprised that anyone “+1”-ed this flawed description and
argument, but I suppose they did so because they liked the result and not
because they found the analysis to be accurate.  This is really at odds
with “fact-based” decision making.  We’re not going to get anywhere if we
have to spend time dealing with “alternative facts.”  Sad!

Best regards,

Greg



On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:39 AM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

> The beauty of the current system (the non-objection letter) is that it
> implies a system of subsidiarity. In countries where (for whatever reasons)
> local authorities have no rights, policies whatsoever, they will have to
> abide by that framework and respond that they have no-objection. Otherwise
> they would be breaking the law.
>
>
>
> In those countries where there are rights, policies or whatsoever that
> allow a local authority to intervene regarding their names/identifiers,
> they will have to follow the law when providing the letter of
> non-objection, setting condition or even denying it.
>
>
>
> So, with the 2012 AGB the ICANN actually applied a principle of
> subsidiarity here, without trying to impose a “one-size-fits all” approach,
> but allowing for different local approaches.
>
>
>
> In general, as local authorities are bound by law, their actions can be
> subject to review.
>
>
>
> As to potential tardiness or absence of reply: as we have discussed, the
> new AGB could provide for deadlines for responses by the local government;
> it may even provide for an implied non-objection if there is no response
> within the deadline; and there can be even a mediation process being
> established in case the applicant does not agree with the decision from the
> local authority…
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> *Im
> Auftrag von *McGrady, Paul D.
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 20. August 2018 17:11
> *An:* alexander at schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus
> Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
>
>
>
> Thanks Alexander.  Your email shows why a one-ICANN-size does not fit all.
>
>
>
> I’m not sure what free speech is, or is not, like in Berlin.  None of the
> other three examples you use (assuming you are referring to the US cities
> of Denver, Dallas and Chicago) would be permitted under the First Amenment
> to restrain speech by insisting no one else could apply for .Denver,
> .Dallas, or .Chicago (and culturally, even if it was permitted, the people
> of Dallas certainly, and perhaps even the people of Denver, would never go
> for such a restriction).  So while Berlin may fall squarely into the
> paradigm you would like ICANN to adopt, the other 75% of your examples do
> not.
>
>
>
> Likewise, having ICANN start down the path of free speech curtailment in
> large city names does lead to the problem of ICANN getting involved in the
> “who deserves it” business – your very poignant example of Berlin v Belarus
> v Azerbaijan shows just how messy that can be.
>
>
>
> The compromise struck in the last round – protecting capital cities – was
> a major concession by the free speech crowd within ICANN.  As your email
> makes clear, expanding that concession to even more cities will be
> incredibly complex and will inevitably curtail speech that otherwise would
> be granted to some if ICANN didn’t go down this path.  I think it is time
> for us to come to grips that ICANN simply can’t be a supranational
> legislator.  Please keep in mind that for those who want to work with
> cities to develop a market for second levels in those city names, there is
> no prohibition against them going to those cities and working with the
> cities to apply as community applications, which applications would trump a
> garden variety non-community application.  The problem you are trying to
> address has already been solved.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Alexander Schubert
> *Sent:* Monday, August 20, 2018 8:49 AM
> *To:* 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.
>
>
>
> To add to this thought:
>
> We are grossly INCONSISTENT with the protection levels that we are
> establishing. Right now we claim a country can NOT be allowed to support an
> application for their 3-letter code or country name within the gNSO policy
> framework – because we need to protect the country from “harm”. We are
> BANNING all these strings completely! But sizeable cities: anything goes,
> and thanks to the non-geo use provision: no protections whatsoever!
>
>
>
> Now let’s compare countries and cities (and obviously I am doing this
> since 2006 A LOT – when I lobbied with Dirk for .berlin to come into
> existence):
>
> A city like Berlin has 3.5 Million people in the city limits, and roughly
> 5.5 Million in the metro area. Compared to countries:
>
> ·         50% of all countries are smaller than the Berlin metro area
>
> ·         Still over 100 countries are smaller than Berlin within its
> city limits
>
> ·         63 countries (more than 25%) have populations under 1 Million
> people!
>
> So indeed: a Million inhabitant city is just population-wise at least as
> important and impacting as more than a quarter of all countries. BUT: if
> you look at a city like Berlin (or Denver, Dallas, Chicago): we aren’t just
> comparing population size! We are talking about domain name spaces, gTLDs!
> In that respect we ought to factor in the Internet penetration, the GDP and
> number of businesses (because they need domains – and Internet users will
> utilize these domains to find the businesses), cultural and political
> importance, etc. If you factor all this in, and compare Berlin to Belarus
> (a country I truly admire, beautiful capital, our southern neighbor) or
> Azerbaijan (each of both have 10 million people): Berlin uses WAY MORE
> domain names than these both. So suddenly a Million people city in an
> industrialized nation probably plays in the top 60% of countries – domain
> name usage wise.
>
>
>
> I am wrapping my head around cities and gTLDs for probably way too long
> (14 years). But most of the times I observe that most people just don’t
> understand how HYPER IMPORTANT cities are as an organizational entity in
> the personal and business life of people. We are totally overprotecting
> country-geo-entities; but seemingly have no problem whatsoever that via the
> “non-geo use” loophole everybody and their greed grandma could snag up city
> based gTLDs en masse.
>
> I think we either scrap the non-geo use provision altogether (which I
> personally do NOT support at all); or we at least elevate SIZEABLE cities
> to the same protection level as country subdivisions  (these are by the way
> are often quite unknown, un-impacting and typically relatively small
> population-wise. Inconsistent.)
>
>
>
> And as the brand-cloud seemingly today admitted: there are ZERO “curative”
> rights in the case of a city-supported application vs. a brand application.
> It’s “big bucks win”. I am consulting companies in regard to domain
> acquisition since 21 years now (started in 1997) – and let me tell you:
> contrary to the picture painted here in another message; most of the larger
> brands have no problems to slap several Million Dollars on a domain asset;
> if they really want it. No chance for a city constituent, non-profit public
> benefit entity to survive at all. But my bigger concern are VC capital
> infused portfolio applicants who are simply applying for dozens of city
> names – declaring non-geo use. Obviously city supported applications do
> currently NOT “top” non-geo use applications; and what then? They city
> supported applicant is likely non-profit AND had likely to make concessions
> to the city. Their business plan is much weaker – as they strive to be
> public-benefit and all. How can they win an auction against VC funded
> applicants?
>
>
>
> The city gTLD process as we have set it up is HEAVELY stacked against the
> type of applicant that we always wanted to see: A good actor, public
> benefit, community supported, community owned &  funded, non-profit, etc.
>
> Unfair, not in the interest of the Internet user or the city constituents,
> not in sync with ICANN’s mandate. All we are asking for is to require city
> support for city name applications if the city is really BIG (in comparison
> to for example countries). And if that cut-off size were a Million people.
> VC money will likely not go for cities with less than a Million people –
> the registrar channel won’t sell enough domains to sustain the application.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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 *Marita Moll
> *Sent:* Monday, August 20, 2018 9:10 AM
> *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.
>
>
>
> Sorry Greg, no intention to be prejudicial. I am not arguing that the
> non-geo use clause be closed entirely. I am suggesting that it not be
> available in the case of very large cities. If we are talking about cities
> of 1M people, that's about 500-600 cities, defined by an authoritative list
> we agree on. A good number will already be reserved as capital cities.
>
> The word inventory makes it sound huge, like thousands of names are
> involved. That's not the case. It is very limited. I don't see that as an
> unreasonable compromise.
>
> Marita
>
>
>
> On 8/20/2018 1:20 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>
> I object to calling this feature a “loophole.”  That is both prejudicial
> and incorrect as well.  What we have is a reasonable limit on the Consent
> right that was given to non-capitol cities in the prior round.
>
>
>
> From an end-user perspective, there is no presumption that a geo-use is
> superior to any other possible use of a given string.
>
>
>
> From a city perspective, nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a
> city to apply for a string related to their city name.  We are just not
> reserving numerous possibilities exclusively for their choice when or if
> they look into the idea of a TLD.  And we are not reserving “inventory” for
> private businesses that consult in the geo-name space.  That would truly be
> outside our remit.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large
> cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants.
>
> It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a
> collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be
> disadvantaged, if it came to a contest.
>
> I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical.
> It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it,
> on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world.
>
> Marita
>
>
>
> On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
>
> Dear WT,
>
>
>
> Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any
> of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these
> codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or
> a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the
> air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT
> the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and
> not one big company can pollute it just to make more money.
>
> And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!):
> That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names)
> are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective
> countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand.
>
>
>
> Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities
> that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process
> as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective:
>
> People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational
> entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence
> we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in
> Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example
> to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being
> German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely
> important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities
> obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a
> Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set
> up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what
> to do – but that’s another issue).
>
> I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German
> State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German
> Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important
> identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and
> “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That
> the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily
> available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to
> aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s).
>
> I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and
> all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE,
> Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them.
>
> And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and
> I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are
> attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY
> identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the
> citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern.
>
>
>
> But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the
> degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166
> Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such
> application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments
> who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to
> allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments
> some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF.
>
>
> *Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about
> contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want
> to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a
> brand, or a small geo entity*. Examples:
>
> ·        A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people
> city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”?
>
> o   Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka:
> either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or
> they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them.
>
> ·        A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded
> and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city
> of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S.  city, even if small). Say their Major
> has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such
> application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture”
> would use a loophole here!
>
> o   As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities
> provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if
> there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their
> application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they
> can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These
> applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE!
>
>
>
> City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands
> and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents!
> A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak”
> – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The
> worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of
> support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If
> such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a
> city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD!
> GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from
> exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can
> help. But if they are in different countries?
>
> We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in
> sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or
> country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large
> geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the
> “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need
> a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use).
> Even  if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people
> cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At
> least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use
> city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city
> destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice
> identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as
> 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc).
>
> Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM
> registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in
> contention with a sizeable city:
> If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such
> city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection”
> (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that
> they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated?
> Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY
> chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your
> position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a
> brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in?
>
> We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see
> that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes:
> in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage
> of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were
> capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals
> but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to
> pay more attention.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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 *Arasteh
> *Sent:* Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35
> *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com> <mike at rodenbaugh.com>
> *Cc:* Edmon <edmon at dot.asia> <edmon at dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <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 All
>
> Yes they are valuable for those countries too
>
> There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing
> for merely commercial and brand purposes
>
> Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss .
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
>
> That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and
> yet are reserved for no legitimate reason.  Countries certainly don't own
> LL codes that don't correspond to current countries.  And they also don't
> "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because
> they are on that list.
>
>
>
> It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to
> all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back
> into the mix as well.
>
>
>
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
>
> RODENBAUGH LAW
>
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
>
> http://rodenbaugh.com
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <
> Nick.Wenban-Smith at nominet.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike
>
>
>
> Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in
> total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO
> 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and
> territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in
> any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no
> reasons whatsoever’.
>
>
>
> Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short
> form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL
> combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from
> any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this
> point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall
> under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO
> policies.
>
>
>
> If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a
> substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there.
>
>
>
> I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital
> cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses.
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh
> *Sent:* 10 August 2018 03:35
> *To:* Edmon <edmon at dot.asia>
> *Cc:* leonard obonyo via 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.
>
>
>
> Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites:  "This memo
> provides information for the Internet community. This memo
>
>    does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."
>
> Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue
> imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the
> mix.  That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names,
> reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
>
>
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
>
> RODENBAUGH LAW
>
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
>
> http://rodenbaugh.com
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon at dot.asia> wrote:
>
> IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also.
> Edmon
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com>
> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00
> To: Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
> Cc: "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.
>
> What purpose does that distinction serve anyone?  I think it is meaningless
> and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable
> two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle.
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0>
>
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert <
> alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:
>
> > Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
> >
> > I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check
> > ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Frfc%2Frfc1591.txt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=8jzkMQGvhCxVM4Nj%2BNFajFjwEzgZfuipvArVNY%2FcnNY%3D&reserved=0>)
> cemented the one and only real differentiator
> > in the DNS:
> > That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority  (which may be
> > deligated like in .tv)  of countries/nations. And that these are two
> > character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
> >
> > If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working)
> > BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character
> > gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
> >
> > The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be
> > uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Alexander
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my Samsung device
> >
> >
> > -------- Original message --------
> > From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange at norid.no>
> > Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00)
> > To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul at gutierrez.se>
> > 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.
> >
> > Hi Carlos
> >
> > Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some
> > 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically
> > be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had
> > from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Annebeth
> >
> >
> > Annebeth B Lange
> > Special Adviser International Policy
> > UNINETT Norid AS
> > Phone: +47 959 11 559
> > Mail: annebeth.lange at norid.no
> >
> >
> >
> > 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <
> > carlosraul at gutierrez.se>:
> >
> > My comments to today's call:
> >
> > 1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process
> > should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested
> > parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country
> and
> > territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a
> > forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if
> > it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW
> > suggested.   A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version?
> How
> > about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties,
> > such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future
> > countries or territories.”  Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving
> ALL
> > two character letter letter” combinations-  can be enhanced.  I wonder if
> > it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential
> > combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow?
> I
> > can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we
> could
> > tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support
> to
> > move forward.
> >
> > 2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo
> > names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear
> > rationale is added to the recommendation
> >
> >
> > 3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion
> > has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic
> and
> > other social  elements, ,like Apache Nation
> >
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> > carlosraul at gutierrez.se
> > +506 8837 7176
> > Aparatado 1571-1000
> > COSTA RICA
> >
> >
> >
> > El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
> >
> > Dear Work Track members,
> >
> >
> >
> > Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations
> > shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes
> > clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more
> > substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
> >
> >
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Emily
> >
> >
> >
> > *From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> on
> > behalf of Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org>
> > *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45
> > *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> > *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call
> > on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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-
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffile%2Ffield-file-attach%2Fannex-1-&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=5tPAZsMtAaecqOOYth%2BEcK8kT6NWj2haeKX5mFCx8l8%3D&reserved=0>
> > gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=ivdh%2BFs44hZdJAEclsQfT8SGxpsVa%2F9c7srR%2F5bKKss%3D&reserved=0>
> ]
> > <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=
> <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%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=kz5Qlv8ZjaZhnl1iW5r8McZZa7dV8dcpcGhz%2FEM%2BlBc%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%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=v7ThLOQt1htQue6J7xGxpXkozzUW7CBijolY9kr58Vg%3D&reserved=0>
> >
> > <Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
> >
> > <Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%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%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%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%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%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%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%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%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180821/65075548/attachment-0001.html>

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