[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Scotland - Preparation for WT5 Meeting 14 August and Final Topic Discussion - non-AGB terms

[Nick Wenban-Smith]

Hi Christopher

It all comes back to the definitions.

The 2012 AGB may have had plenty of deficiencies, but whether it’s good policy or not it did clearly and tightly define “geographic” (in section 2.2.1.4).

Neither Ben Nevis nor Scot met the definition, so it’s clearly correct (as per the rules in the 2012 AGB, and if we are not going to follow them then what’s the point of a rulebook?).

It’s the lack of agreement on this basic definition which has been the difficulty bedevilling the whole WT5 work stream IMO.

Best wishes
Nick

From: lists at christopherwilkinson.eu <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
Sent: 20 August 2019 19:39
To: Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith at nominet.uk>
Cc: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch; susan.payne at valideus.com; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
Subject: Re: Scotland - [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Preparation for WT5 Meeting 14 August and Final Topic Discussion - non-AGB terms

Dear Nick:  I think the Ben Nevis question should be resolved by the Scottish Administration at the level of subsidiarity that they would determine.

In any case, I would hope that they would refer to ‘whisky distilleries’.

P.CW

PS:  To this day I am ‘abasourdi’ by a then GNP decision under 2012 AGP that .scot is not a geographical term!





On 19 Aug 2019, at 18:29, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith at nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith at nominet.uk>> wrote:




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20190823/c468b837/attachment.html>