[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear All, I tend to agree withChristopher that the argument submitted by
Robin is misleading to some extent as partly indicated by Christopher.
I do not understand the the term " HARM " and it sscopescope.
Harm could be financial
It could be technical
It could be admnistrative
It could be caltural
it could prevention for future uise
It could be against freedom of expression
By the way, Robion has not replied to the questions that I raised.
I therefroe do not agree with her so- called compromise which is
subordination and not compromise
Regards
Kavouss



On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 7:43 PM lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <
lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

> Dear Robin Gross:
>
> Thankyou. But having read your more detailed explanation, below, I must
> say that won't do at all.
>
> 1. Your argument presupposes that the applicant has a right to use a
> geo-name for whatever purpose and only that one would seek to prevent
> 'harm' from misrepresentation. I consider that would not be widely
> acceptable in the world at large.
>
> 2.  The primary 'harm' from non-geo use is that present or future use of
> that unique string would become unavailable for its geo-purposes.
>
> 3.  This is really not a matter for compromise within WT5. Most of the
> interests principally concerned are not directly represented in WT5.
>
> 4.  Regarding the underlying philosophy of this question, we are no longer
> in the nineteenth century American West; we are in the post-colonial
> twenty-first century. It is incumbent upon us all not to re-create in the
> digital age the mistakes and injustices of the past.
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Christopher Wilkinson
>
> El 21 de septiembre de 2018 a las 23:18 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> escribió:
>
> Hello,
>
> In follow-up to our WT5 meeting discussion earlier this week, I wanted to
> provide a more precise proposal for an amendment to policy requiring a
> govt. letter of support / non-objection from applicants of TLDs that are
> geo-words other than capital city names.
>
> The goal here is to target the harm to be prevented from a
> misrepresentation that the TLD speaks for the local authority when it isn’t
> the case, while also allowing for other legitimate uses of a geo-word TLD
> to go forward.  So it is an attempt to balance two legitimate interests in
> a way that can find room for preventing the bad acts, but allowing lawful
> TLD uses to go forward.  It is a proposal for compromise to find middle
> ground.
>
> In short: applicants who intend to represent a connection to the authority
> of a non-capital city or other geo-category from the guidebook will need to
> provide a letter of support/non-objection as a means of verifying that
> connection.
>
> However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the
> authority of the non-capital city or the other geo-categories from the
> guidebook, protections will be enhanced by inserting contractual
> requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from
> misrepresenting their connection or association to the geo-word.
>
> Putting aside capital cities, we will leave them as the policy currently
> exists, we would ONLY require the govt. letter for the other geo-words IF
> the use represents a connection to the authority.  So that would apply to
> non-capital city names and sub-national, unesco, etc. categories where
> govt. letters are currently at issue.
>
> More precisely worded proposal:
> *Applicants who intend to represent a connection the the authority of a
> city, sub-national place, unesco region, or appearing on the “Composition
> of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and
> selected economic and other groupings” list will need to provide a letter
> of support/non-objection.*
>
> *However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to
> the authority of the geographic terms listed above, protections will
> instead be achieved by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry
> Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection
> or association to the geographic term.*
>
> I do invite comments, questions, and suggestions about this proposed
> amendment to the existing policy for geo-categories.  I don’t claim this is
> a perfect proposal, but discussion could possibly help lead us to a better
> policy that attempts to balance differing legitimate interests in a more
> nuanced way than what we’ve got now.
>
> Thank you!
> Robin
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180922/74dfdce4/attachment.html>