<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Sorry Greg, no
intention to be prejudicial. I am not arguing that the non-geo
use clause be closed entirely. I am suggesting that it not be
available in the case of very large cities. If we are talking
about cities of 1M people, that's about 500-600 cities, defined
by an authoritative list we agree on. A good number will already
be reserved as capital cities. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">The word inventory
makes it sound huge, like thousands of names are involved.
That's not the case. It is very limited. I don't see that as an
unreasonable compromise.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Marita</font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/20/2018 1:20 AM, Greg Shatan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+aOHUTwMMBzNB+YUriM6BgQkwx=S1B=8qCETMNR7yTrWZcBug@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div>
<div>
<div dir="auto">I object to calling this feature a “loophole.”
That is both prejudicial and incorrect as well. What we
have is a reasonable limit on the Consent right that was
given to non-capitol cities in the prior round.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">From an end-user perspective, there is no
presumption that a geo-use is superior to any other possible use
of a given string.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">From a city perspective, nothing we are doing here
limits the ability of a city to apply for a string related to
their city name. We are just not reserving numerous
possibilities exclusively for their choice when or if they look
into the idea of a TLD. And we are not reserving “inventory”
for private businesses that consult in the geo-name space. That
would truly be outside our remit.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Best regards,</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Greg</div>
<div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM Marita Moll
<<a href="mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">mmoll@ca.inter.net</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I totally
agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole
for large cities - at least those with 1M+
inhabitants.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> It just
doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender
could beat out a collective of over1M people. This
is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it
came to a contest. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I don't
see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as
very practical. It is within our mandate to make
this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf
of millions of citizens of cities around the world.
<br>
</font></p>
</div>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> </font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Marita</font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div
class="m_-8281451006298984630m_-8285247595732267424moz-cite-prefix">On
8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div
class="m_-8281451006298984630m_-8285247595732267424WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
name="m_-8281451006298984630_m_-8285247595732267424__MailEndCompose"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Dear
WT,</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Mike
and Farzaneh have a point when they claim
“Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And
I concur with them: Governments do not “own”
these codes. These codes identify a “national
subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”;
hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by
nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned”
by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the
air and the water, right? So it is clean and
everybody can use it – and not one big company
can pollute it just to make more money.<br>
<br>
And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very
valuable one!): <br>
That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2
& 3 and the country names) are important and
of utter relevance for the people of the
respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t
simply be “taken” by some brand.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Seemingly
some in this group see “Governments” as
kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much
“public land” out of this gTLD application
process as possible. But try to look at this
from another perspective:<br>
<br>
People are organized in hyper large “tribes” –
the largest organizational entities probably
being their countries, but also states and
cities (hence we are protecting exactly these
three silos right now). When I lived in Germany
I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As
opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are
the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt
being German of course. And European. Berlin,
Germany and Europe are extremely important
identifiers for me and my identity. These three
geo-entities obviously need to be governed by
the people, for the people. By a Government of
the people. And usually in Europe that’s how
things are set up (sadly outside of Europe
sometimes minorities dictate the majority what
to do – but that’s another issue).<br>
<br>
I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital
of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2
country subdivision list), from the German
Government and from the European Commission to
make sure that the important identifiers
“.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”,
“.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse
or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the
respective authorities make sure that these
strings are readily available for ME as citizen
and business owner (not for the Governments) to
aid me in creating domain names that help
identifying my tribe(s). <br>
<br>
I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these
strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other
citizens. This is all about the needs of THE
PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such
needs, and aid in protecting them.<br>
<br>
And the Governments are delivering! They do
guard these identifiers – and I shall be
thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when
“brand owners” are attempting to shame my
elected representatives for protecting MY
identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in
reality you attack the citizens these
Governments have been elected by – and who they
are govern. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">But
I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE
of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By
completely BANNING all country names and 3166
Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government
would happily support such application – we at
ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore
Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN
that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow
entities to apply. And does that even make
sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t
decide ON THEIR BEHALF.<br>
<br>
<b>Which leads me to the one item we still
haven’t solved:<br>
What about contention between a SIZEABLE
geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want
to use such string as identifier) and a
generic term based application or a brand, or
a small geo entity</b>. Examples:</span></p>
<p
class="m_-8281451006298984630m_-8285247595732267424MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1f497d"><span>·<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New
Roman""> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">A
city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24
Million people city) application vs. a brand
“SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”? </span></p>
<p
class="m_-8281451006298984630m_-8285247595732267424MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:72.0pt"><span><span>o<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New
Roman""> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Right
now this would go into normal contention
resolution; aka: either the city constituents
raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or
they go into last resort auction and like the
brand can easily outbid them.</span></p>
<p
class="m_-8281451006298984630m_-8285247595732267424MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1f497d"><span>·<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New
Roman""> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">A
Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city
constituent funded and owned .dallas application
vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of
Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if
small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in
some way into signing a letter of support! Such
application wouldn’t come from the tiny city
itself – likely some “vulture” would use a
loophole here!</span></p>
<p
class="m_-8281451006298984630m_-8285247595732267424MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:72.0pt"><span><span>o<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New
Roman""> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">As
per the current contention set rules as TWO
DIFFERENT entities provided Government support
BOTH applications would be put on hold – if
there was no contention resolution BOTH
applicants would get their application fees
reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the
“vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the
offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These
applications would NOT be subjected to the last
resort auction! A LOOPHOLE!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">City
names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring
loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare
“non-geo use” – and outbid the city
constituents! A city community owned and funded
application is always financially “weak” – as
they have to make all kinds of concessions to
the city usually. The worst case is somebody
coercing a small city major into signing a
letter of support – and forcing the applicants
for a large city to buy them out. If such
applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large
city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and
would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD!
GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly
unprotected from exploitation. If both cities
are in ONE country – maybe national law can
help. But if they are in different countries?<br>
<br>
We need to better protect the larger
city-populations (people who live in sizable
cities). We create all kinds of protections for
3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we
do not protect these very large geo-communities
very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we
have the “non-geo use provision in place for
small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a
protection equal to country subdivisions
(elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were
to define “sizable” at a real high number.
Million people cities mean: at least a million
people that identify with the name! At least a
million people who are robbed of their
possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A
city robbed of their possibility to conduct city
destination marketing, eGovernment and similar
things under one nice identifier (usually cities
reserve strings for official use, such as
911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc).<br>
<br>
Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition
is – probably a simple TM registration for US
$250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in
contention with a sizeable city:<br>
If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive;
what can the citizens of such city do? Does the
current AGB provide for a successful path in
“objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or
wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have
“TM rights” – thus the objection would be
unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city
objection against a brand application have ANY
chance of success? Please be honest! I know you
are fiercely defending your position – but I
also know that you are honest: how would you
defend a brand against such objection? Would you
simply cave in?<br>
<br>
We have soon the “consensus call” on city
applications – but I don’t see that we have a
clear understanding of the implications of
contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were
no problems. But then only a small percentage of
brands claimed their strings, and only a few
cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The
next wave will contain more brands and less
capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters”
will try to make a buck: We need to pay more
attention. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><br>
<br>
Thanks,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Alexander</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<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 [<a
class="m_-8281451006298984630m_-8285247595732267424moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Arasteh<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35<br>
<b>To:</b> Mike Rodenbaugh <a
class="m_-8281451006298984630m_-8285247595732267424moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><mike@rodenbaugh.com></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Edmon <a
class="m_-8281451006298984630m_-8285247595732267424moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:edmon@dot.asia"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><edmon@dot.asia></a>;
leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <a
class="m_-8281451006298984630m_-8285247595732267424moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5]
WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call
on Country & Territory Names - Please
review before our call.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear All</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes they are valuable for
those countries too</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">There should be a fair
treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing
for merely commercial and brand purposes</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Alexander’s suggestion may be
a middle ground solution </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kavouss .</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"> </p>
<div
id="m_-8281451006298984630m_-8285247595732267424AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal">Sent from my iPhone</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <<a
href="mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">mike@rodenbaugh.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">That over 600 very
valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could
be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no
legitimate reason. Countries certainly
don't own LL codes that don't correspond
to current countries. And they also don't
"own" the 3-letter codes that do show up
on an ISO list, merely because they are on
that list. </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">It seems to me that
many in this group are reopening the
discussion as to all other 'geo' terms,
and so these valuable names need to be
thrown back into the mix as well.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br clear="all">
</p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Mike
Rodenbaugh</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">RODENBAUGH
LAW</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">tel/fax:
+1.415.738.8087</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><a
href="http://rodenbaugh.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://rodenbaugh.com</a> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Aug 9, 2018
at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <<a
href="mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk</a>>
wrote:</p>
<blockquote
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">Hi Mike</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">Just to take the
point here, the LL (all
combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in
total, of which approaching half
are already in use as ccTLDs)
plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL
combinations which correspond to
existing country and territory
names (less than 300 of the
17,500 odd LLL combinations)
can’t in any reasonable context
be framed as ‘a large subset …
reserved for no reasons
whatsoever’.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">Up until now there
seems to be a strong consensus
for the long and short form
country and territory names plus
all the LL combinations and LLL
combinations which correspond to
ISO 3166 to continue to be
excluded from any gTLD processes
– for the reasons expressed on
many threads up to this point
about sovereignty over national
assets and whether these could
fall under domestic internet
community policies
(subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO
policies. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">If we can’t settle
on that as for the 2012 AGB
round then there will be a
substantial opposition to any
new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s
not go there.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">I’ve said my piece
on geo names falling below the
hierarchy of capital cities; I
think those are fair game for
legit non geo uses.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">Best wishes</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">Nick</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b>
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <<a
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Mike
Rodenbaugh<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 10 August 2018 03:35<br>
<b>To:</b> Edmon <<a
href="mailto:edmon@dot.asia"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">edmon@dot.asia</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> leonard obonyo via
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <<a
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re:
[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda,
Work Plan & Consensus Call on
Country & Territory Names -
Please review before our call.<span
lang="EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">Note the first
sentence in the RFC that
Alexander cites: "<span
style="color:black">This
memo provides information
for the Internet community.
This memo</span></span></p>
<pre><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB"> does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."</span><span lang="EN-GB"></span></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">Since this WT5
appears to want to reopen
every "geographic" issue
imaginable, we need to add
2-character LL and
3-character geo TLDs to the
mix. That is a large subset
of potentially very valuable
and useful names, reserved
for no legitimate reason
whatsoever.<br clear="all">
</span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB"> </span><span
lang="EN-GB"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB">Mike
Rodenbaugh</span><span
lang="EN-GB"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB">RODENBAUGH
LAW</span><span
lang="EN-GB"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB">tel/fax:
+1.415.738.8087</span><span
lang="EN-GB"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB"><a
href="http://rodenbaugh.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://rodenbaugh.com</a> </span><span
lang="EN-GB"></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">On Thu, Aug
9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon
<<a
href="mailto:edmon@dot.asia"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">edmon@dot.asia</a>>
wrote:</span></p>
<blockquote
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm
0cm 0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB">IDN
"cc"TLDs already broke
(free from) that also.<br>
Edmon<br>
<br>
<br>
-------- Original
Message --------<br>
From: Mike Rodenbaugh
<<a
href="mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">mike@rodenbaugh.com</a>><br>
Sent: 10 August 2018
2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00<br>
To: Alexander Schubert
<<a
href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>><br>
Cc: "<a
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>"
<<a
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re:
[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5]
WT5 Agenda, Work Plan
& Consensus Call on
Country & Territory
Names - Please review
before our call.<br>
<br>
What purpose does that
distinction serve
anyone? I think it is
meaningless<br>
and entirely
unnecessary, depriving
the world of many very
valuable<br>
two-character TLDs that
have no reason to be
sitting idle.<br>
<br>
Mike Rodenbaugh<br>
RODENBAUGH LAW<br>
tel/fax:
+1.415.738.8087<br>
<a
href="http://rodenbaugh.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://rodenbaugh.com</a><br>
<br>
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at
2:57 AM, Alexander
Schubert <<br>
<a
href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> Dear Annabeth, dear
Carlos,<br>
><br>
> I agree with
Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who
doesn't know it by
heart: check<br>
> <a
href="http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt</a>)
cemented the one and
only real differentiator<br>
> in the DNS:<br>
> That there are
ccTLDs; operated and
organized by authority
(which may be<br>
> deligated like in
.tv) of
countries/nations. And
that these are two<br>
> character strings.
That everything
exceeding two characters
are gTLDs.<br>
><br>
> If we want to keep
this (rather artificial
- but to date well
working)<br>
> BASE order of the
DNS; we should refrain
from assigning two
character<br>
> gTLDs. It's a TINY
amount of potentially
available strings
anyway.<br>
><br>
> The two character
vs more than two
character distinction
needs to be<br>
> uphold; BOTH WAYS
(no three letter
ccTLDs).<br>
><br>
> Thanks,<br>
><br>
> Alexander<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Sent from my
Samsung device<br>
><br>
><br>
> -------- Original
message --------<br>
> From: Annebeth
Lange <<a
href="mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">annebeth.lange@norid.no</a>><br>
> Date: 8/8/18 23:48
(GMT+02:00)<br>
> To: Carlos Raul
Gutierrez <<a
href="mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">carlosraul@gutierrez.se</a>><br>
> Cc: <a
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br>
> Subject: Re:
[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5]
WT5 Agenda, Work Plan
& Consensus Call<br>
> on Country &
Territory Names - Please
review before our call.<br>
><br>
> Hi Carlos<br>
><br>
> Could I ask you for
one clarification? If we
open up for some<br>
> 2-letter/letter
combinations in the GNSO
process, they will
automatically<br>
> be gTLDs. You don’t
think that will disturb
the distinction we have
had<br>
> from the beginning
that 2-characters are
ccTLDs and 3 or more
gTLDs?<br>
><br>
> Kind regards,<br>
> Annebeth<br>
><br>
><br>
> Annebeth B Lange<br>
> Special Adviser
International Policy<br>
> UNINETT Norid AS<br>
> Phone: +47 959 11
559<br>
> Mail: <a
href="mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">annebeth.lange@norid.no</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> 8. aug. 2018 kl.
22:43 skrev Carlos Raul
Gutierrez <<br>
> <a
href="mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">carlosraul@gutierrez.se</a>>:<br>
><br>
> My comments to
today's call:<br>
><br>
> 1. “The ICANN
Community may want to
consider whether a
future process<br>
> should be
established or determine
if, when, and how
specific interested<br>
> parties, such as
relevant government
authorities, may apply
for country and<br>
> territory names”
This paragraph is the
only sensible part of a<br>
> forward-looking
recommendation and
should/could be
redrafted. I wonder if<br>
> it could be
enhanced, or if the only
way to go is deletion as
CW<br>
> suggested. A
shorter more concise
version? A more
“liberal” version? How<br>
> about: “ICANN may
consider applications by
specific interested
parties,<br>
> such as relevant
authorities, of strings
that are not current or
future<br>
> countries or
territories.” Ps: The
text in Recommendation 1
“reserving ALL<br>
> two character
letter letter”
combinations- can be
enhanced. I wonder if<br>
> it’s truly ALL, or
if the potential for
future countries and
potential<br>
> combinations is
really much less broad?
Could that be qualified
somehow? I<br>
> can’t think of a
future .xx or .ññ
country or territory and
maybe we could<br>
> tweak the language
to open this a bit and
garner broad community
support to<br>
> move forward.<br>
><br>
> 2. Other than
recommendation #1, I
object strongly the text
to "keep geo<br>
> names from the
delegation" in any other
recommedation, unless a
clear<br>
> rationale is added
to the recommendation<br>
><br>
><br>
> 3. I hope no draft
goes out before a
substantial non-AGB
names discussion<br>
> has taken place,
including to geographic
related, cultural,
linguistic and<br>
> other social
elements, ,like Apache
Nation<br>
><br>
><br>
> Best regards<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ---<br>
> Carlos Raúl
Gutiérrez<br>
> <a
href="mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">carlosraul@gutierrez.se</a><br>
> +506 8837 7176<br>
> Aparatado 1571-1000<br>
> COSTA RICA<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> El 2018-08-08
05:09, Emily Barabas
escribió:<br>
><br>
> Dear Work Track
members,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Please find
attached suggested
revisions to the draft
recommendations<br>
> shared yesterday.
Please note that this
revised text includes<br>
> clarifications and
typo corrections only.
Feedback on some of the
more<br>
> substantive issues
will be discussed
further on today's call.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Kind regards,<br>
><br>
> Emily<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> *From:
*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
<<a
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org</a>>
on<br>
> behalf of Martin
Sutton <<a
href="mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">martin@brandregistrygroup.org</a>><br>
> *Date: *Monday, 6
August 2018 at 14:45<br>
> *To: *"<a
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>"
<<a
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>><br>
> *Subject:
*[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5]
WT5 Agenda, Work Plan
& Consensus Call<br>
> on Country &
Territory Names - Please
review before our call.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Dear Work Track
members,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Please find below
the proposed agenda for
the WT5 call on
Wednesday 8<br>
> August at 13:00
UTC:<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> 1. Welcome/Agenda
Review/SOI Updates<br>
> 2. Review of
Consensus Call Process
and Work Plan<br>
> 3. Consensus Call
on Country and Territory
Names<br>
> 4. Wrap Up -
Non-AGB Terms<br>
> 5. AOB<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On our upcoming
call, the leadership
team will introduce a
work plan aimed<br>
> at wrapping up
WT5's work and
delivering an Initial
Report by the end of<br>
> September. In
maintaining this
timeline, the leadership
is seeking to<br>
> ensure that Work
Track 5 inputs can be
effectively integrated
into the work<br>
> of the broader New
gTLD Subsequent
Procedures PDP Working
Group in time for<br>
> delivery of the
PDP's Final Report. A
copy of the work plan is
attached.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> As outlined in the
work plan, the
leadership team will be
holding a series<br>
> of consensus calls
on potential
recommendations to
include in WT5's Initial<br>
> Report. These will
be introduced in
clusters, with the first
set of<br>
> recommendations
focusing on country and
territory names. The
draft<br>
> recommendations,
which will be discussed
on Wednesday, are
attached. *Work<br>
> Track members are
encouraged to review and
provide feedback on
these draft<br>
> recommendations
prior to the call on
Wednesday*. The
leadership team will<br>
> officially open the
consensus call on this
topic following
Wednesday's<br>
> call. For more
information on the
consensus call process
that will be<br>
> followed, please
see the GNSO Working
Group Guidelines,
Section 3.6:<br>
> <a
href="https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-</a><br>
>
gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf
[<a
href="http://gnso.icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso.icann.org</a>]<br>
> <<a
href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e="
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=</a>><br>
> .<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> If you need a dial
out for the upcoming
call or would like to
send an<br>
> apology, please
email <a
href="mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-secs@icann.org</a>.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Kind regards,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> WT5 Co-Leads<br>
><br>
> Annebeth Lange<br>
><br>
> Javier Rua<br>
><br>
> Olga Cavalli<br>
><br>
> Martin Sutton<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> The contents of
this email message and
any attachments are
intended solely<br>
> for the
addressee(s) and may
contain confidential
and/or privileged<br>
> information and may
be legally protected
from disclosure. If you
are not<br>
> the intended
recipient of this
message or their agent,
or if this message<br>
> has been addressed
to you in error, please
immediately alert the
sender by<br>
> reply email and
then delete this message
and any attachments. If
you are<br>
> not the intended
recipient, you are
hereby notified that any
use,<br>
> dissemination,
copying, or storage of
this message or its
attachments is<br>
> strictly
prohibited.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>
_______________________________________________<br>
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list<br>
> <a
href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br>
> <a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a><br>
><br>
> <Draft
Recommendations -
country and territory
names - v4.pdf><br>
><br>
> <Draft
Recommendations -
country and territory
names - v4.docx><br>
><br>
>
_______________________________________________<br>
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list<br>
> <a
href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br>
> <a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a><br>
><br>
><br>
>
_______________________________________________<br>
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list<br>
> <a
href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br>
> <a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a><br>
></span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset
class="m_-8281451006298984630m_-8285247595732267424mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
<a class="m_-8281451006298984630m_-8285247595732267424moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>
<a class="m_-8281451006298984630m_-8285247595732267424moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>