[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report

[Rosalía Morales]

Dear Mike,

Thanks for clarifying what exactly you meant in your previous e-mail. These two exceptions out of more than a thousand applications puts things in perspective.

Best,
Rosalía
[cid:B190111C-4AAD-456E-809F-8934B6CA8935]

On Sep 7, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>> wrote:

Also "exceptions" like Amazon and Persian Gulf, which were not 'geo terms' as defined, and yet nevertheless have met government opposition and delay.  There needs to be certainly for future applicants, as was clearly intended to have been the goal in 2012, only to be thwarted by governments many times over.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
The “few exceptions” seem to be virtually every application where the applicant intended a “non-geo” use but the string was judged to be (among other things) a geo-name.

If we don’t fix this, we’ve failed.

Best regards,

Greg

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 1:44 PM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
+1


________________________________

Von: Rosalía Morales <rosalia.morales at nic.cr<mailto:rosalia.morales at nic.cr>>
Datum: 7. September 2018 um 19:42:59 MESZ
An: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>>
Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report

Dear Mike,

Stating that "The compromise of 2012 went too far kowtowing to government demands, holding the entire program hostage” does not seem accurate. As far as I’m concerned, the program went by pretty well for some few exceptions. Taking into account the opinions of other stakeholder groups is not holding the program hostage, is actually how the multistakeholder model works and how this group is supposed to work.  All opinions (not “demands”) are welcomed in this process and are the key elements of ICANN.

Best,
Rosal'ia
[cid:B190111C-4AAD-456E-809F-8934B6CA8935]

On Sep 7, 2018, at 11:14 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>>> wrote:

went way too far kowtowing to government demands, holding the entire program hostage

_______________________________________________
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/20180908/e09909d7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Rosalia-Morales.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9809 bytes
Desc: Rosalia-Morales.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180908/e09909d7/Rosalia-Morales-0001.png>