[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Geo Names Scenarios
mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW
mail at christopherwilkinson.eu
Sat Aug 10 12:44:08 UTC 2019
Good afternoon:
Noted. Having looked at the 'final' version, I noticed some concessions to my comments, some of which have been recalled by John McCormac. Thankyou. However, I think we should have gone further. It still sounds rather corny to be referring hypothetically to existing gTLDs.
Also, regarding .bluenile, ALAC must be consistent with existing TM law. If we accept that one local TM can block - or obtain - a global monopoly TM, then geo-names could become lost on a large scale.
This whole issue merits a thorough discussion which has never taken place in At Large.
Regards
CW
> El 5 de agosto de 2019 a las 22:15 Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org> escribió:
>
>
> Thanks John. I guess the point is that the applicant guidebook is being rewritten and the rules regarding permission, etc. are being revisited and we're just trying to build a consensus position her in the At-large, to the extent possible, so that we might comment. Our attempt to just "share views" in Morocco was a bit of a mess so we came up with the ideas of scenarios. I'll look at your specific comments and try to incorporate the ones that make sense. Thanks again!
> Jonathan
>
>
> On 8/5/19, 1:12 PM, "GTLD-WG on behalf of John McCormac" <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of jmcc at hosterstats.com> wrote:
>
> On 05/08/2019 20:07, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
> > *Folks,*
> >
> > On Wednesday’s call, I hope to circulate the link to a survey, for
> > everyone to spread to the community, regarding Geo Names scenarios. In
> > an effort to get past the rhetoric and down to brass tacks, as we say,
> > we’re looking at “outcomes” that we may or may not like. If we we are
> > able to identify the outcomes we won’t and don’t want, we can set about
> > crafting policy recommendations, if not for subproc than at least the
> > board, that would most likely lead to those outcomes. Hope that makes
> > sense. Remember the questions we will aks about each scenario are:
> >
> > 1. Do you believe this scenario to be likely, given the status quo?
> > 2. How satisfied would you be with this scenario?
> >
>
> It looks very much like an angels and pinheads situation with a lot of
> hypotheticals. Some of the existing Geo NGTs are not doing well and it
> might be better to examine the reasons for this before going off on a
> tangent about hypothetical situations that may or may not affect a
> second round of NGTs.
>
> On item 1: people in many areas outside the US consider their local
> ccTLD to be the first choice TLD. Having millions of domains in a geo
> database might be impressive but the Internet, and most people in those
> regions will just ignore it and continue using their local ccTLD. (By
> the way, .NAME is a real gTLD so it might better to use .EXAMPLE for
> examples.)
>
> On item 2: Duplication. Capital city names are not necessarily unique. I
> think that the guys from .BERLIN explained the process of having to get
> permission from the city council/authorities before applying for the NGT.
>
> On item 3: Doesn't the Catholic Church have .CATHOLIC?
>
> On item 4: More rules and regulations for non-existent NGTs? Go look at
> the structure of the .US ccTLD. It was intended to have a kind of
> geographical and regulatory subdomains structure. The problem is that
> TLDs tend towards simplicity. Brand names and business names matter in
> most TLDs and trying to impose subdomains is not a good approach because
> people generally ignore them. Worst of all, it creates confusion for the
> NGT and opens the possibility of multiple pricing tiers.
>
> The assumptions in this hypothetical seem to be based on the
> non-existence of ccTLDs as a direct competitor to Geo NGTs.
>
> Regards...jmcc
> --
> **********************************************************
> John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc at hosterstats.com
> MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/
> 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics
> Waterford * And Historical DNS Database.
> Ireland * Over 516 Million Domains Tracked.
> IE * Skype: hosterstats.com
> **********************************************************
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>
> Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
> _______________________________________________
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>
> Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
More information about the CPWG
mailing list