[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name

[Robin Gross]

As I’ve stated several times on this list, freedom of expression advocates do not agree with Christopher’s suggestion, and we remain opposed to prohibiting words because they may have a geographic reference.  There is no basis in international law or in reason for such a proposal which restricts people’s right to use words that refer to a geographic feature, especially when they aren’t even referring to that geographic feature.  Such a proposal is a massive infringement of freedom of speech, which IS recognized in international law and which ICANN IS obligated to respect.  Please remember the New GTLD Policy Recommendation G which says the string evaluation process must not infringe the applicant’s freedom of expression rights, and which we are obligated to follow.

Thanks,
Robin


> On May 16, 2018, at 2:25 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:
> 
> The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name!
> 
> I would like to second Christopher: While not having created too much havoc in the 2012 round that provision WOULD BE heavily abused in the next round.
> 
> Other than the trade mark lobby (which is WELL paid to lobby the TM interests): Who ELSE objects Christopher’s suggestion to abandon “the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name”? Somebody OUTSIDE the TM lobby? 
> 
> Or the other way around: Who else seconds Christopher’s suggestion to abandon “the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name”? A geo name is a geo name – once delegated to somebody the constituents and citizens of that geo-location are deprived to utilize the string to identify themselves in the DNS forever. Inacceptable. 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
>  
> Alexander
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:46 PM
> To: lists at christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> 
>  
> Christopher wrote:
>  
> 3.  The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?)
> 
> There has been significant— repeated — objection to that proposition, so no, you may not take it that it is agreed in WT5.
>  
> Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that.
>  
> Greg
>  
> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:39 PM lists at christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:
>> Good afternoon:
>> 
>> With respect, this is the first time that I have perceived that in 2012, Geo-Names Review was different from the Geo-Names Panel. I shall try and get my head around that! 
>> 
>> Meanwhile, it would clearly be an advantage to have a review function available for ALL Geo-related applications, up front, BEFORE applicants and the mechanisms spend time and money on the approval procedures.
>> 
>> I have already posted several comments that would significantly reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications. Pour Memoire:
>> 
>> 1.  The application should be from an entity within the jurisdiction of the geo-name in question, and the proposed TLD Registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction. There should not be any incorporations in third country tax havens.
>> 
>> 2.  There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may be applied for by any one entity. 
>> 
>> 3.  The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?)
>> 
>> Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and during implementation.
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> CW
>> 
>> PS:  Since all applications for Geo-Names should have received non-objection letters from the appropriate authorities, I might imagine that the scope for String Contention would be considerably reduced if not eliminated.
>> 
>>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <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/20180516/36c007e6/attachment.html>