<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.m-4285050372606341472ox-922a4e2e01-msonormal, li.m-4285050372606341472ox-922a4e2e01-msonormal, div.m-4285050372606341472ox-922a4e2e01-msonormal
{mso-style-name:m_-4285050372606341472ox-922a4e2e01-msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.m-4285050372606341472ox-922a4e2e01-apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:m_-4285050372606341472ox-922a4e2e01-apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.st
{mso-style-name:st;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1720207792;
mso-list-template-ids:1563450628;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name!<br><br>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.<br><br>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? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><br>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. <br><br><br>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Alexander<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Shatan<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:46 PM<br><b>To:</b> lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu><br><b>Cc:</b> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Christopher wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p style='font-size:1rem;word-spacing:1px'><span style='color:#313131'>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?)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>There has been significant— repeated — objection to that proposition, so no, you may not take it that it is agreed in WT5.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Greg<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:39 PM <a href="mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu">lists@christopherwilkinson.eu</a> Wilkinson <<a href="mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu">lists@christopherwilkinson.eu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><div><p>Good afternoon:<o:p></o:p></p><p>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! <o:p></o:p></p><p>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.<br><br>I have already posted several comments that would significantly reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications. <em>Pour Memoire:</em><o:p></o:p></p><p>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.<br><br>2. There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may be applied for by any one entity. <o:p></o:p></p><p>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?)<o:p></o:p></p><p>Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and during implementation.<o:p></o:p></p><p>Regards<o:p></o:p></p><p>CW<o:p></o:p></p><p>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote></div></div></div></body></html>