[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments

Wed Apr 4 14:12:25 UTC 2018

Hello

I support Cristopher's points

The separation between generic and country code TLDs is not the question of
semantics - it is about policy ie who is in control of how the TLD is
operated whether it is local internet community or international community
(ICANN). So from that point of view anything that stands for and represents
country names must be in control of these local communities. That in
general goes for geo-names as well - in my view interests of local internet
community should override the corporate interests. But as the geo-names
were already released under GNSO policy we should work around that to try
to find a solution that works for internet communities and if no claim is
made for corporate or international/generic interests.

Thank you,
Timo Võhmar
Estonian Internet

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Alexander Schubert <
alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:

> Hi WT5,
>
>
>
> Greg makes a valid point here:
> Obviously a place like Qatar, London or Israel are relevant and important
> enough internationally as well as locally to be protected globally for the
> local residents. But then there are places that do not even HAVE
> “Internet”, no industry whatsoever and no recognition internationally not
> even nationally. A small hill for example. Or a small stream.
>
> The big question here is: how to distinguish? In the past we tried to
> apply ISO lists – with mixed success.
>
> But this is probably irrelevant for the names that have been banned in the
> 2012 round: ISO 3166 Alpha-3 and territory names. These are impacting
> enough to deserve extra protection by requiring a letter of non-objection
> by the Government!
>
>
>
> So we have TWO different problem clouds:
>
> 1.       Names that have been unavailable in the 2012 round: ISO 3166
> Alpha-3 and territory names!
>
> 2.       Small, unknown, un-impacting geo-places (small mountain, small
> stream) around the world
>
>
>
> I think both need to be dealt with separately.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 04, 2018 3:41 PM
> *To:* lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <
> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> *Cc:* cw at christopherwilkinson.eu; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW
> comments
>
>
>
> A string may be used as a brand, a geographical name, a generic term, a
> purpose-specific term and a surname, among other things.
>
>
>
> Whether it is “primarily” one of those things may or may not be a relevant
> or workable test or factor.  And how one determines the primary  use is
> open to debate. Declaring that if some patch of dirt or pool of water has
> been named X, that X is always “primarily” a geographical name, regardless
> of other uses and factors, is a conclusion, not a basis.
>
>
>
> Invoking “transparency and predictability” as a mantra doesn’t make it any
> more reasoned.  I don’t think there’s a “transparency” issue here at all,
> but since we all support transparency (except, it appears, when it comes to
> who owns a domain name) it must be good, right?  And why the “transparency
> and predictability” needs of the occupants of a tiny village trump the
> transparency and predictability of millions of consumers is still a
> mystery.  It represents a dirt-based physical nationalism that is very much
> at odds with the border less reality and future of the Internet, though
> experiencing a disturbing resurgence at the moment in the U.S. and
> elsewhere. You can build a wall at the border or around a patch of dirt;
> that doesn’t mean that you put that same wall around every top level domaIn
> name that happens to be used as a geographical name somewhere.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 3:04 AM lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <
> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
>
> Dear Greg, Dear WT5 participants:
>
> I consider that a geographical name pertains primarily and in the first
> instance to the internet users (present and future) in the location
> concerned.
>
> This in the interests of transparency and predictability for individual
> users among those communities and economies.
>
> Regards
>
> CW
>
>
>
> El 2 de abril de 2018 a las 19:32 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> escribió:
>
> Kris,
>
>
>
> What is your basis for thinking that Geonames takes precedence over IP?
> I’d like to understand that thought process, and see how broadly you think
> this “precedence” should be applied (and why).
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:49 AM Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just a thought:
>
>
>
> Why don’t we just ensure country codes with ISO alpha 3 is retained for
> countries plain and simple. There are countries where even the alpha-2 are
> not within an independent hands. ICANN is still working trying to release
> them from certain people, but still no way out. So a proposal is all the
> ISO alpha 3 are allotted within bounds that these could be used as
> alternate to alpha 2 for countries. That could clear the air for government
> and so on. So ISO alpha 3 can still be under GNSO per say. We do not move
> them to cctld.Just a thought.
>
>
>
> Then we could look at brands etc., based on IP or a strong case where it
> geoname attached to a country language, or culture but without also
> destroying a model that would be on the onus of the party requesting such
> Domain. Since we are talking Geonames. I think Geo takes precedence over IP
> but we may need to establish a strict way of engaging this as it could
> backfire as well.
>
>
>
> My two cents. But still it’s a double sided cutting knife.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 2, 2018, at 08:35, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I would say that the ideas and concepts in RFC 3071 are still quite
> relevant.  I'd prefer that others (and Christopher) consider their
> substance, rather than finding ways to dismiss them without responding to
> them.  We have not been at this domain name thing for all that long, and
> there is relatively little that looks at the taxonomy of domain names in
> any comprehensive way.
>
>
>
> *Christopher, can you clarify what "relevant prior rights" you are
> referring to with regard to geographical names?  Which laws and/or treaties
> are you referring to, and to which parts?*
>
>
>
> While I hope that "the question of multiple uses can be resolved," I
> expect that it will, indeed it must, become a driver of "the eventual
> policy for geographical names."
>
>
>
> It's an interesting way to turn history on its head and state that "all
> sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept
> within GNSO."  It's really quite the opposite.  Once upon a time, there
> was a DNSO and the DNSO was in charge of policy for all domain names.  Then
> came a time when two-letter TLDs specifically designated for a particular
> country or autonomous territory derived from ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country
> codes (i.e., ccTLDs) were removed from the purview of the DNSO (which was
> renamed the GNSO) and placed in a new "supporting organization," the
> ccNSO.  All else remained in the GNSO.
>
>
>
> As for whether there is an analogy with brands, I'll need to understand
> what "relevant prior rights" (i.e., laws and/or treaties) are being invoked
> in that analogy before I can respond.  Even assuming *arguendo* that
> there is an analogy, the issue of rights to a string really only becomes
> relevant when more than one party is interested in it or claims an interest
> or right in it.  Which brings us right back to "the question of multiple
> uses."
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>  .
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180404/03c9b738/attachment-0001.html>