[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Today's call, and Application of International Law to the GeoNames Provisions of the Applicant Guidebook
Maureen Hilyard
maureen.hilyard at gmail.com
Fri May 18 09:59:11 UTC 2018
I think that core to Mazzone's argument for me, is :
“ What if there were ways to allow uses of the TLD by the applicant, but
in some way also allowing the applicable government to also get some use?
I am currently working in an day job that has nothing to do with ICANN or
TLDs, but the content that I am working with relates to "benefit-sharing".
And I wondered if this model could be incorporated into the discussion,
where the government and the applicant might be able to make an agreement
on some mutual benefit/s of sharing a name. Just a thought along the lines
of what I am dealing with in a completely different context but, would
that ever work here?
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 11:48 PM, Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone at ebu.ch> wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I think that we are insisting on a dead-end row, when we discuss about the
>
> „intended use“. This concept does not help when we are talking about a
> unique resource.
>
> If we look at some of the most contentious TLD of the last round (most of
> them unresolved till today)
>
> - Amazon
>
> - Patagonia
>
> - Spa
>
> - Africa
>
> - GCC
>
> How such a concept of the “intended use” would have helped ?
>
> I cannot figure out at all.
>
> We need to skip this concept from the debate and find real solutions
> applicable when we talk of a unique resource as today are TLDs.
>
> I think that what Jeff Neuman proposal about possible dual use of TLD
> needs to be explored.
>
> I remember here what he said few days ago:
>
> - “ What if there were ways to allow uses of the TLD by the
> applicant, but in some way also allowing the applicable government to also
> get some use?
> - I do know of at least one situation (which I am not sure is
> publicly known….so cannot go into detail) where two parties had an interest
> in a particular TLD and arrangements were made to ensure both parties were
> entitled in some ways to use the space.”
>
> ICANN role is to find positive and creative solutions and to act in the
> public interest. This would be an interesting challenge to explore, instead
> than wasting time with the concept of the “intended use”, that has proved
> not to solve the issues we are discussing here.
>
>
>
> Giacomo
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Liz Williams
> *Sent:* vendredi 18 mai 2018 10:06
> *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Today's call, and Application of
> International Law to the GeoNames Provisions of the Applicant Guidebook
>
>
>
> Hello Greg
>
>
>
> I really appreciated your thoughtful contribution on this (after Heather
> and Nick) and perhaps you’ve captured the nub of the problem with potential
> urban TLDs, noting I have deliberately changed the terminology from “city”
> and I have deliberately not used the term “geo” TLD which is ICANN
> shorthand for a concept that does not necessarily exist outside that
> particular bubble.
>
>
>
> Perhaps you have articulated what some are most concerned about which is
> "false impressions of authorization” (even though some argue that urban
> TLDs' public authorities do not necessarily have the right to veto or even
> make decisions about TLD labels”)? So, if we are concerned about “false
> impressions of authorisation” perhaps the key to this might be a “test” in
> the evaluation criteria about an application creating that false impression
> (not dissimilar to misleading customers at the second level?). If
> evaluators thought that applicants were proposing the use of a TLD which
> created that false impression, then there might be cause for asking
> Clarifying Questions (a formal process in the evaluation system). If
> though, an applicant just wanted to get on with a TLD without worrying
> about “geographic” concerns, they would be free to do so. They would not
> need letters of support or non-objection because they are irrelevant to the
> application...
>
>
>
> Further ideas most welcome.
>
>
>
> Liz
> ….
> Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs
> .au Domain Administration Ltd
> M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757
> E: liz.williams at auda.org.au www.auda.org.au
>
> Important Notice
> This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject
> to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee
> only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or
> copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake,
> please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
>
>
>
> On 18 May 2018, at 6:41 am, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Nick,
>
>
>
> I don’t think that Heather was suggesting “no rules,” though I’ll let her
> speak for herself. Rather, I see her suggesting that we stick to “the rule
> of law” and avoid making policy for which there is no legal support.
>
>
>
> One of the touchstones of gTLD policy-making has been that we don’t create
> new rights. We certainly may create new methods for enforcing those
> rights, and we may seek to adapt off-line rights so that they work in the
> ICANN context (which may require some judicious re-shaping of the
> parameters of that right). Lastly, ICANN policy-making has favored (except
> for technical considerations) after-the-fact curative rights (e.g., UDRP)
> over before-the-fact preventive rights. Any time policy-making strays from
> any of these concepts, it must be done with the utmost conservatism. These
> precepts should govern our exploration of options and “pragmatic
> compromises.”
>
>
>
> As I read your email, the key policy objective you cite is avoiding “the
> false impression of an authorisation by a state or other authority.” That
> seems to be a reasonable objective. You state that letters of
> non-objection were helpful to a “significant number of national and city
> TLDs who once they had negotiated this hurdle proceeded to delegation and
> successful widespread use without contention.” I assume that “national and
> city TLDs” means a TLD intended to function as an adjunct to a nation or
> city referred to in the TLD (i.e., a “geoTLD”). Here, I think we might
> find at least tentative agreement — a “geoTLD” functioning without
> authority from the relevant state/authority could lead to a false
> impression of authorization. And, as far as I know, the TLDs intending to
> be geoTLDs did make it through the process successfully (however, this must
> be confirmed).
>
>
>
> However, context is critical in that analysis. Where the TLD is not
> functioning as a geoTLD, there is no valid basis to claim a “false
> impression of authorization,” and there Is no need for a letter of
> non-objection. There may be some extremely limited special cases (e.g.,
> country names), but they must be the exception and not the rule.
>
>
>
> You advise that we should “Compare and contrast with other applications
> some six years later which are still stuck in the process.” I’m not sure
> which applications you’re thinking, but the applications that I can think
> of in that category were not geoTLD applications, but rather wanted the TLD
> for other purposes. If there are any geoTLD applications stuck in the
> process, please let me (and all of us) know; that would be a valid concern.
>
>
>
> The “other [non-geoTLD] applications ... still stuck in the process” are
> examples of situations where the non-objection process did NOT work
> successfully at all. These are essentially dolphins stuck in tuna nets.
> This needs “improvement,” as you would say. The improvement needed is to
> remove the non-objection process in these instances. There’s no likelihood
> of confusion, so the process should not be available.
>
>
>
> Perversely, the existence of an overbroad non-objection requirement might
> fuel “false impressions of authorization” by creating a false impression
> that every string that has a geo-meaning must have been authorized. This
> type of “false false impression” can be eliminated by making the letter of
> objection process much more narrowly tailored to the case of truly likely
> “false impression of authorization.”
>
>
>
> This bring us back to the concern that Heather was suggesting “no rules.”
> After thinking this through, it’s even more clear that this is not what
> she meant. Rather, I believe she meant that we need to create rules that
> are clearly based on rights, rather than creating rights by making up
> rules. In this instance, that means requiring letters of non-objection
> only where the applicant seeks to run the “city’s TLD” or the “state’s TLD”
> or whatever the equivalent geoTLD is; without a letter of non-objection (or
> support) such a registry would create a “false impression of
> authorization”.
>
>
>
> At the same time, we need to make it clear that where there is no false
> impression of authorization, there should be no power over a gTLD
> application granted to a “Geo-homophone” — at any point in the process.
> This would bring clarity to measures dealing with the key issue you
> highlight — a remedy for false impression of authorization — while
> eliminating the uncertainties for applicants not seeking to create a geoTLD
> (including the threat that they could be interminably “stuck in the
> process”).
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 1:55 PM Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <
> ohlmer at dotzon.com> wrote:
>
> +1 Nick
>
>
>
> BG Katrin
>
>
>
>
>
> DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow
> Akazienstrasse 28
> 10823 Berlin
> Deutschland - Germany
> Tel: +49 30 49802722
> Fax: +49 30 49802727
> Mobile: +49 173 2019240
> ohlmer at dotzon.consulting
> www.dotzon.consulting
>
> DOTZON GmbH
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598
> Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin
>
>
>
> *Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] *Im
> Auftrag von *Nick Wenban-Smith
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 17. Mai 2018 18:55
> *An:* harish at nixi.in; Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Today's call, and Application of
> International Law to the GeoNames Provisions of the Applicant Guidebook
>
>
>
> Hi Heather, all
>
>
>
> This is a very interesting point of discussion.
>
>
>
> Firstly I think we all agree that clear and predictable rules for
> applicants going forward is a highly desirable objective. Where the current
> 2012 AGB can be improved upon then we should identify the offending wording
> and seek to replace it with something better. The use of the term “city”
> for example means different things to different people and countries. In
> the UK I had always understood a city to equate to those population centres
> with a cathedral, but from Wikipedia it seems there is quite a lot of
> history and domestic politics to it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> City_status_in_the_United_Kingdom
>
>
>
> Secondly, I generally accept that in terms of ICANN generally and grant by
> ICANN of new gTLDs in particular, there is not much by way of international
> law. (If there were, then we would not need to have all these meetings at
> all times of day and night to reflect on the policy options, and in fact
> ICANN would probably just be another UN agency). So for better or worse the
> task falls to the various ICANN communities, balancing the various
> interests and stakeholder views from across the globe and coming up with
> options, and considering the inputs and making pragmatic compromises where
> appropriate. In turns out that in this field of geo names there are a lot
> of different opinions and perspectives, which makes this a complicated
> process!
>
>
>
> Finally, as I said in my previous post about an eon back in policy terms
> it is the false impression of an authorisation by a state or other
> authority that is to be avoided here. To my mind whilst the non-objection
> process was not perfect by any means, it did work very successfully in
> relation to a significant number of national and city TLDs who once they
> had negotiated this hurdle proceeded to delegation and successful
> widespread use without contention. (Compare and contrast with other
> applications some six years later which are still stuck in the process).
> Very open to alternative solutions, such as a fair and transparent early
> advisory approach, but no rules at all does not feel a good outcome in
> terms of justification in the general public interest.
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Harish Chowdhary
> *Sent:* 17 May 2018 09:14
> *To:* Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Today's call, and Application of
> International Law to the GeoNames Provisions of the Applicant Guidebook
>
>
>
> Dear Heather,
>
> I would like to re-iterate the facts again with some queries.
>
> *2. International law does not explicitly recognise a right of governments
> to approve/reject a new gTLD application*
>
> As per Article 12,Sec 12.2 (ix)(x)(xi), of ICANN bylaws, GAC Advice is
> based on a consensus of the GAC. If the GAC advises that there are concerns
> about a particular gTLD (generic Top level Domain ) application, the ICANN
> Board is expected to enter into dialogue with the GAC to understand the
> scope of concerns and provide rationale for its decision.
>
> - Do you believe "Article 12,Sec 12.2 (ix)(x)(xi), of ICANN bylaws" is
> not useful
> *as per International Laws?*
>
>
> *4. An absolute consent/non-objection process that prioritises one party's
> rights or interests over others is not supported by international law.*
>
> - Do you suggest that the National Governments are just a party in
> this context and doesn't reflect the concern and sensitivities of people of
> the Country?
>
> I beleive Mr. Jorge is correct while suggesting that “letter of
> non-objection” model, apart from being already tested, leaves the decision
> on the applicable solution to the relevant public authorities in conformity
> with their national laws and policies. This way it is respecting the
> diverging national approaches to the question.
>
> Further, do you suggest should we start a discussion on which law has
> precedence over another while they are applied to a Geo-name TLDs. This may
> again add the one more dimension of complexity to the issue.
>
> - National Laws
> - International Laws
> - ICANN By-laws
>
> It is to be noted that in March 1994, RFC 1591 was published, setting out
> the naming practice. RFC 1591 reflects the significant amount of work
> critically for the context of country names as top-level domains.RFC 1591
> identified and preserved the link between ccTLDs and the ISO 3166-1 list
> and established two significant, fundamental principles:
>
> 1. The IANA (ICANN) is not in the business of deciding what is and
> what is not a country.
>
> 2. The selection of the ISO 3166 list as a basis for country code
> top-level domain names was made with the knowledge that ISO has a procedure
> for determining which entities should be and should not be onlist.
>
> · To date these two principles are still at the core of the policy
> for allocation and delegation of ccTLDs (and IDN ccTLDs)
>
> · The policy on use of two-letter codes as the source for ccTLDs
> and as documented in RFC 1591, is still valid.
>
> · At its core, it relies on the ISO 3166 and its processes and
> procedures to determine whether a Geographic/Geopolitical entity should be
> considered a country, and, hence ultimately if a ccTLD code should be
> assigned to that entity.
>
> Based upon the above facts we may again involve the* ISO at United
> Nations* (If there is huge complexity at ICANN level (WT#5) in
> determining the role and imortance of GAC and Goverment laws in delegation
> of GEO-TLDs) to set a procedure for determining which entities should be
> and should not be onlist of
>
> · City Names
>
> · Names with Geo-graphic Significance
>
> · Names which were not included in the AGB 2012
>
>
> *Thanks,*
> *Harish Chowdhary,*
> *Technology Analyst,*
> *National Internet Exchange of India*
> *ISOC FELLOW | inSIG FELLOW*
> *IIREF FELLOW | UASG AMBASSADOR*
> www.nixi.in | www.indiaig.in | registry.in
>
>
> From: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>
> Sent: Thu, 17 May 2018 11:38:39 GMT+0530
> To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Today's call, and Application of
> International Law to the GeoNames Provisions of the Applicant Guidebook
>
>
> Dear WT5 colleagues,
>
>
>
> I very much appreciated the agenda item today on improving the efficiency
> of information exchange and retention. I like the idea of a single document
> to capture all inputs, but I worry that staff compiling a new and separate
> compilation of our comments is a less efficient, rather than more
> efficient, way to work.
>
>
>
> I have hesitated to add to the excellent thread that got started on the
> topic of city names. That thread sparked detailed discussion, but it got
> very long and complex very quickly (70+ posts). I hope we can continue to
> explore ways that enable more voices to be heard, and to more efficiently
> capture inputs from members at the time they are first made, so that we can
> avoid devoting previous policy staff resources to summarising and
> re-formatting after the fact what's already been said but is scattered
> around across thousands of emails.
>
>
>
> In it is possible to create a library or repository on the WG wiki or
> similar, I have attached my comments below also as a PDF. Submissions in
> writing make it possible to provide more background, explanation, and
> detail, and point to the sorts of specific examples, laws, etc that support
> your views - why I think the city names thread is so effective, despite its
> length. I personally don't believe it's helpful to make a lengthy
> intervention on our calls, so I haven't done that. I apologise in advance
> for the length of this post! I tried to be as concise as possible while
> still providing explanation for conclusions.
>
>
>
> I agree with those who have already suggested that it does not make sense
> to try to categorise and treat differently different types of geographic
> names (city, country, region, local, landmark, etc), because international
> law does not make that distinction. References have been made in other
> posts to international law, and some members have dismissed these comments.
> I urge us to treat international law seriously in terms of what the law
> currently is, how it is formed, and how it affects our policy-making. My
> comments rely heavily on my doctoral thesis, completed in 2012 at the
> University of Berne, Switzerland, on the question of whether the Applicant
> Guidebook provisions on geographic names are consistent with international
> law. My research has been published (https://lrus.wolterskluwer.
> com/store/product/protection-of-geographic-names-in-
> international-law-and-domain-name-system-second-edition/) and reviewed
> internationally. I mention this not in an underhanded attempt to sell
> books, but rather to acknowledge the impossible task of summarising 4+
> years and 400+ pages and 1000+ footnotes in this post, and to provide a
> link to the full set of data and analysis that sits behind this post.
>
>
>
> *1. The critical difference between domestic and international law, and
> why it matters*
>
>
>
> Having examined Swiss law in my thesis as an example of national law
> dealing with geographic names, I noted the references to 29 Civil Code
> (and other national laws) in the thread on city names. The Swiss Civil Code
> applies only in Switzerland's borders, so the right of challenge exists
> only against those those persons and companies within Swiss jurisdiction. A
> national law that limits the use of a name (any name, geographic or
> otherwise) applies in that jurisdiction only. A Swiss law cannot restrict a
> party in, for example, Indonesia. This is the case unless, under widely
> accepted fundamentals of international law, the law is classified as a
> "general principle of international law", meaning that it is universally
> adopted in most countries' national laws. Determining this is a difficult
> and time-consuming process, usually undertaken to identify procedural (how
> an outcome is achieved) rather than substantive (attributing a right or
> responsibility) legal rules. Even apart from the fact that the question of
> legal rights in geographic names is a substantive matter rather than
> procedural one (and thus not the sort of rule traditionally constituting a
> "general principle of international law"), my research uncovered no such
> universality or consistency across the laws of the many countries of the
> world such that the principle of 29 Swiss Civil Code or similar could be
> characterised as a general principle of international law. When a country
> has such a law, it is enforceable only against those within that country's
> jurisdiction. It has been said by many on this list that "*Domain names
> are unique, and global resources". *This is precisely why we cannot base
> the policy for those global resources on national laws unless those laws
> are shared by all or at least most countries.
>
>
>
>
>
> *2. International law does not explicitly recognise a right of governments
> to approve/reject a new gTLD application*
>
>
>
> This is the principal conclusion of my doctoral thesis, albeit distilled
> into its most concise wording without any of the supporting law or
> explanation. I have worded this here very carefully, so as to offer a
> statement of fact, not opinion, because I am aware that some will dismiss
> it by saying: "Well, this is just your *opinion*'. After exhaustive
> research in a range of fields of international law (including state theory
> and the principles of what makes a country a country in the eyes of the
> international community plus trade law, IP law, historical custom, and
> others), both historical and current, and their explanatory notes, texts
> and drafts, I can state unequivocally that I found no *explicit*
> recognition of a government right to a geographic name in any area or
> source of international law. As a critical next step, I considered whether
> such a right is *implicitly* recognised. Some countries have tried, at
> different points in recent time, to amend the Paris Convention for the
> Protection of Industrial Property to explicitly recognise government rights
> in geographic names. These attempts have not - as yet - reached the full
> agreement of the many countries party to the convention (currently 177);
> this agreement is necessary for a rule to be international law. The fact
> that agreement cannot be reached on this point indicates that - at least
> right now - there is also no implicit international law recognising legal
> rights of government in geographic names. This conclusion is based on the
> state of the law today. It is not a prediction of nor an evaluation of
> future law. This is not my personal judgment on what the law *should or
> could *be.
>
>
>
> *3. Why we should not ignore i**nternational law in WT5, and why ICANN
> policy effectively creating or circumventing it compromises ICANN*
>
>
>
> In the CWG-Use of Country and Territory Names, as well as in WT5, it has
> been said that the fact that there is no international law recognising an
> exclusive right of governments to geographic names does not matter because
> a) the fact that international law does not contain such a right does not
> stop ICANN policy from doing so and b) there is more to the issue than just
> international law.
>
>
>
> First, b), there is more to the issue than just international law. Just
> because one thing is affected by numerous factors affecting different
> stakeholders does not mean that any single factor can be ignored. Dare I
> say it, there is more to WHOIS data than just privacy or law enforcement
> (or any number of other factors). I have yet to hear anyone suggest that we
> ignore privacy in the next-generation WHOIS. Or law enforcement. etc.
>
>
>
> On a), the fact that international law does not contain a right of
> governments to geographic names does not stop ICANN policy from doing so.
> It is not simply the case that there is no law; the many countries of the
> world have tried but cannot agree on this issue. Argument a) sees ICANN
> making a decision it is not empowered to make, in the face of those bodies
> that are empowered to make this decision but have not found the agreement
> necessary to do so. ICANN has in its bylaws committed to "carrying out
> its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law
> and international conventions and applicable local law." Is a policy that
> gives governments a right of priority or exclusivity in geographic names
> "in conformity with relevant principles of ... applicable local law"?
> Conformity would depend country-by-country, each country having different
> local laws, only achievable if all countries agreed. If agreement isn't
> there, this is not a workable foundation for a rule that applies to all;
> some will inherently be violators from the outset. Each country has a
> sovereign right to choose how to name a place or to impose restrictions on
> using names within its own borders. We cannot pick the law of one or some
> countries and impose it on all countries, because this violates basic
> principles of sovereignty. A country trying to impose national law outside
> of its own borders can at its most extreme be interpreted as an intrusion
> into national sovereignty, and thus an act of war. Think of any country in
> the world other than the one you live in or represent, and then imagine
> that country insisting that its laws apply in your home country. This is
> clearly not an environment that ICANN should create or encourage, and why
> we need to rely on international law, which by definition is law agreed
> upon by a large proportion of the world's nations.
>
>
>
> Is a policy that gives governments a right of priority or exclusivity in
> geographic names "in conformity with relevant principles of international
> law"? No, because not all countries agree that such rights exist. I believe
> that ICANN oversteps its mandate and legitimacy when it implements a policy
> that recognises a right that not only is not explicitly recognised in
> international law, but where we have clear record of not being able to
> reach agreement. To the outside world, this suggests that ICANN is being
> used to circumvent the agreement threshold needed to form international law
> in the bodies where that happens. ICANN's rules are strengthened by, and
> earn their legitimacy from, their origin in and recognition by legitimate
> law-making bodies. International law experts do not recognise ICANN - at
> least at this time - as a body the agreed decisions of which constitute
> international law. If it is desired and agreed that international law
> should change or evolve, this action must be taken through those legitimate
> law-making bodies. Lobbying for new international law has no place in WT5;
> this needs to be directed at the government representatives who participate
> in these recognised international law-making bodies. Once such a law is
> made in those fora, we would ignore it at our peril in ICANN policy-making.
>
>
>
> *4. An absolute consent/non-objection process that prioritises one party's
> rights or interests over others is not supported by international law*
>
>
>
> A rule that gives any stakeholder - public or private - an absolute
> exclusive or priority right in a geographic name in the DNS (in other
> words, the right to tell all others they cannot use the name in the DNS, or
> place restrictions on its use in the DNS) is not supported by international
> law. No one has absolute or priority rights under international law such
> that they have the power to decide how or whether others use a geographic
> name. Again, it is precisely because the DNS is a global resource that we
> should not presume to prioritise one party over another. This, for better
> or worse, is how we ended up with auctions to resolve competing
> applications. I am NOT suggesting that auctions are appropriate here, but
> simply noting that we ended up with auctions in the AGB because the ICANN
> community felt it was not possible or appropriate to have to decide whether
> one applicant's application was more worthy or deserving or stronger etc
> than another.
>
>
>
> *5. We need policy that respects national sovereignty and the rights
> recognised in international law by not giving any one stakeholder priority
> over others, enables all those with rights or interests in a name to
> identify their right/interest and risks to those, and resolves applications
> to avoid those risks.*
>
>
>
> Rather than aim in WT5 to create (and argue about) a single,
> one-size-fits-all rule, I believe that we should be aiming to
> develop predictable steps for equitably and transparently dealing with
> applications for geographic names, where all interested parties have the
> opportunity to clearly identify their particular right or interest and test
> the application against those rights/interests. If I were to propose a
> change to the flow charts we saw today, it would be a streamlined process,
> fairer for all. As a strawman I suggest something like the involvement of
> the Independent Objector in the 2012 applications, whereby the global
> public interest in a given string was explicitly identified and evaluated
> against each challenged application, on a case-by-case basis. An
> individualised resolution to each case can be reached where all interests
> are evaluated for possible harm, possible alternatives or remediating
> solutions are identified, all by an independent party, but without the cost
> or burden or time of litigation. These are global resources, so this cannot
> be a policy about "protection". Rather, a policy for global resources
> should be about finding ways to make sure they are used fairly,
> transparently, in accordance with and not in place of international
> law. Many comments have been made in this thread along these lines, so I'm
> hopeful that we're conceptually all closer together than it appears.
>
>
>
> With best wishes, and thanks to the co-leads for encouraging a broad range
> of views to be expressed,
>
>
>
> Heather Forrest
>
> WT5 member
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> [NIXI is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at:
> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/nixiindia & Twitter: @inregistry ]
> This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
> contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
> all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use,
> disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email
> is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> * ************************************************** This email and any
> files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use
> of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have
> received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This
> footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the
> mailgateway ************************************************** *
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180517/cb730b6e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list