[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments

Mon Mar 26 08:08:40 UTC 2018

Happy with your view on this dear Greg.
Regards.
Janvier Ngnoulaye

2018-03-26 6:54 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:

> With regard to point 3 ("Geographical names are not Generic in the usual
> semantic or, indeed, ICANN sense. Nearly all of those names are specific to
> places, cultures, regions, communities and their local economies. The fact
> that GNSO has taken the lead in the PDP WT5, does not diminish in any way
> the specific characteristics of geo-names."):
>
> We should avoid getting drawn into a policy conflict disguised as a
> semantic argument.  The term "generic" as used in "generic TLDs" has long
> since departed from any "semantic" meaning of generic.  Even as far back as
> 2001, RFC 3071 recognized that "generic" was ambiguous when applied to
> gTLDs, whic could be "generic" as in "purpose neutral" or "unbranded and
> open for use in any way" or "generic" as in "purpose-specific" or "related
> to a particular genus of registrants."  As a result of the 2012 New gTLD
> round, we now have hundreds of gTLDs that are .Brands.  Brands are
> conceptually and semantically the opposite of generic.  We have dozens of
> TLDs being used as "geo-names."  We also have many that are "purpose
> specific" and many that are open to use by all without any type of "genus"
> implied or expressed.  I'm sure there are other types and distinctions to
> be made, but ultimately these are all gTLDs.
>
> The same word or string can have multiple meanings.  In numerous cases,
> the same string could be delegated and used as a generic, purpose-specific,
> .Brand or geo-name gTLD, depending on the applicant's plans. We need to be
> conservative with the idea that a string or word is inherently one thing or
> another.  For instance, "tours" could be a .brand, a geo-name, a
> purpose-specific gTLD or even a purpose-neutral gTLD.
>
> The GNSO's role here is not one where it has "taken the lead" as a
> free-floating "fact" but one where it has that responsibility as a matter
> of ICANN policy.  In that vein, this is not "PDP WT5"; this is a "work
> track" within a GNSO Policy Development Process Working Group.  The GNSO
> is a task-based entity, with that task being to manage the process of
> developing the policy recommendations for gTLDs.  Anyone can participate in
> that process.  It is irrelevant whether they are a member of (or a
> stakeholder represented by) any GNSO Stakeholder Group or Constituency.
>
> That is not to say this is the only possible way in which ICANN could have
> been or could be constituted.  Before there was a GNSO and a ccNSO, there
> was a DNSO, which "advise[d] the ICANN Board on policy issues relating to
> the domain name system (DNS) -- the system of names commonly used to
> identify Internet locations and resources."  Some body could decide to
> re-imagine this structure yet -- reconsider what is a gTLD and what is a
> ccTLD (perhaps based on use and purpose than on the ISO 3166 two-letter
> list), and whether other categories should be recognized aside from these
> two.  But this body is not that body.  And this body has enough
> complexities and distractions to complicate and delay our work without
> getting into existential debates -- especially those that are firmly
> outside our remit.
>
> It might be interesting to establish an unchartered discussion group to
> have those existential debates.  However, it is the farthest thing from
> interesting (not to mention, productive) to turn this Work Track into that
> discussion group.  I strongly encourage us not to get drawn down that
> rabbit-hole, which is in fact a rabbit-warren with a multitude of holes.
>
> Greg
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Christopher.
>>
>> Javier Rúa-Jovet
>>
>> +1-787-396-6511 <(787)%20396-6511>
>> twitter: @javrua
>> skype: javier.rua1
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
>>
>>
>> On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:12 PM, "lists at christopherwilkinson.eu" <
>> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear WT5 Participants:
>>
>>
>> Further to the Wt5 meeting in San Juan on 14 March, this is just to
>> recall the main points that I made during that discussion.
>>
>>
>> 1. For the new gTLD PDP to move forward with a reasonable delay, we need
>> a new geo-TLD policy now. It would not be a good idea to wait for, or to
>> out-source to other external entities, although in due course, external
>> contributions may become relevant.
>>
>>
>> 2.    I suggested that WT5 would save time by discontinuing discussion
>> about ISO 3166. That is an international standard for codes and names
>> representing countries and their subdivisions. As such, it is a well
>> codified sub-set of the generality of geographical names. The bottom line
>> is that within the scope of ISO 3166, ICANN is bound to respect the
>> international standard.
>>
>>
>> 3.    It is also not advisable to pursue the idea that the 2012 Applicant
>> Guide Book (AGB) definition of geo-names is a relevant ‘default’. That text
>> failed to address several classes of names that are of significant interest
>> to user communities, a lacunae which gave rise to several disagreements and
>> delays last time around. That should be corrected for the next round, as
>> unambiguously as possible, in the interests of transparency and
>> predictability for the individual users in the locations concerned.
>>
>>
>> In that context, I regret that the WT5 Terms of Reference do not address
>> those issues explicitly. They will now have to be addressed by WT5.
>>
>>
>> 3. Geographical names are not Generic in the usual semantic or, indeed,
>> ICANN sense. Nearly all of those names are specific to places, cultures,
>> regions, communities and their local economies.
>>
>> The fact that GNSO has taken the lead in the PDP WT5, does not diminish
>> in any way the specific characteristics of geo-names.
>>
>>
>> The approach to geographical names requires a tailored approach to the
>> evaluation and implementation of such applications, to which I shall return
>> in due course as the WT5 agenda evolves.
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>> Christopher Wilkinson
>>
>>
>> PS:     Resending, because the original message was sent from a non-WT5
>> registered  address. Apologies for any duplication.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180326/afc7cb56/attachment.html>