[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Mon May 7 23:44:20 UTC 2018

Mike, Javier, 

based on your new example if ICANN's application, evaluation and
delegation process can't solve this I can see only two options based on
this thread: 

#1 Use only the {application} and {evaluation} sections, and move the
delegation decisions somewhere else where local laws and traditions are
looked at under a different perspective 

#2 Go somewhere else where GeoCommunities get "gifts", like the ccTLDs
did decades ago  

But maybe other people see more options

---
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

mQENBFqh7xwBCAC7PBUUek72U8teLrAieWI+JBo/nz0rQObzKgzGNWm2bb+i90mD
roNsrvwDJiGOsB/VAhJy6ilIhs++QrxhVEzMz6oKJa8ANaNNvnK2Z8heYm1aC97E
qY6y1z853b6F3XrN8262dor9NZEqaK28NVwLsFTfkGKhb4f3rJlCDmhwxt5VHhBQ
MHKGxyutq0fyJpG6QpoAoRLaYXrq+xjXARhN9JBjeRRzbjnBbWt7+lRdCrZdOxfD
ivRut9F2zMJq8RmeI5goTcq03IRLtKf41A6Np5K//HLe7GlHWH9g4pSKF+UB+EMe
S506TxI0dVbyT3jlTnhhfNA/bpQXHcdCZ5EhABEBAAG0F2Nhcmxvc3JhdWxAZ3V0
aWVycmV6LnNliQEcBBABAgAGBQJaoe8cAAoJEOkK/VKjr2tvztgH/1zInwNszd4w
21UilxVmXX2J1SPZG6xXwbwU5BukIm7iBVYwxxPlIAZdJbG0/QynK2oWU1e1Zjed
vBemfJtjOn2yRWo3P13PUV/2/trHWgUk5bA3eIUbWDW5fQRLW+TaHC7TuRKgRaJC
NgdBItEniQz7DakGzld3PWmsTvIWd4N/fqzATD3DOZmONF52lyVuAEvKoF4rMRTR
emvCrL66xEu19u9+Urk7R+DQuFQMNuX0MqC6/vIsmXYZPH7jnV6ZDyzb0BUnjYcx
6MH/YwJx29yjA4iN1NpwCpy1hc+YP1oavz2t+6isM6wB0mXlAazw2d83zwypsH6C
8xgjuRFm9xQ=
=RX04
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- 

El 2018-05-04 09:18, Mike Rodenbaugh escribió:

> Javier, 
> 
> An extremely similar scenario has happened with .PersianGulf already.  Anyone can read up on that situation via the IRP briefing [1] and the most recent, resulting Board resolution [2].  Essentially, and frankly quite ridiculously, Arab countries don't want that TLD to exist because they call that body of water the Arabian Gulf.  [Of course, they could apply to operate the .ArabianGulf TLD....]  My client was the only applicant for the TLD, and prevailed in the Arab governments' silly Objection against the application.  Thus they should have been awarded the TLD and ICANN was poised to issue the contract. 
> 
> But, the Arab governments persisted, bringing an IRP against ICANN.  Incredibly, in by far the most ridiculous IRP decision in ICANN's brief history, ICANN lost that IRP.  More incredibly, even though my client was not a party to that IRP, the foolish IRP panel ordered ICANN to terminate my client's application.  Perhaps even more incredibly, but rightfully, ICANN has refused to adopt that recommendation.  Currently ICANN is deciding what to do with the application..., treating the Arab governments objection as non-consensus GAC Advice, even though the GAC did not issue any such advice. 
> 
> Thus, it is a huge, ridiculous mess, and seems unlikely to conclude any time soon. 
> 
> Best, 
> Mike 
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh 
> RODENBAUGH LAW 
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087 
> http://rodenbaugh.com  
> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:21 AM, Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> All,  
> 
> Thank you for this very active, interesting and constructive thread.   
> 
> A question to anyone willing to tackle it (and I hope it doesn't have a chilling effect on this great conversation!) - Here goes:  
> 
> How could a future policy and AGB deal with the following scenario: 
> 
> A substate people or indigenous community, say the Kurds, applies for a string that depicts a string which they historically claim "as theirs" (.Kurdistan), a string whose very existence would probably be denied by the relevant constituted sovereign authorities since its recognition would help validate the self-determination claim of that sub-state people (and the relevant constituted sovereign state strongly objects to the application). I think this would fall on the category of "geonames not included in AGB".   
> 
> I suspect there would be less contentious cases than .Kurdistan, but I use a potentially highly adversative hypothetical for argument's sake, as a type of "stress test".   
> 
> Javier Rúa-Jovet 
> ALAC
> 
> +1-787-396-6511 
> twitter: @javrua 
> skype: javier.rua1 
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua [3]  
> 
> On May 4, 2018, at 3:29 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
> 
> Thanks. It seemed your question led in a very specific direction... but I may have misunderstood.
> 
> Hope that my feedback clarifies things. I guess we all are aware that national/regional laws have an impact on ICANN and need to be respected insofar they are applicable.
> 
> best
> 
> Jorge
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org>
> Datum: 4. Mai 2018 um 09:24:48 MESZ
> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> Cc: mazzone at ebu.ch <mazzone at ebu.ch>, gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
> 
> Jorge,
> 
> I am not a lawyer and I think many others in the WT are also non-lawyers, so I am trying to clarify the reach of the laws you have specified and understand this better.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Martin
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 4 May 2018, at 08:18, "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Hi Martin is that a legal assessment? As you know, the DNS is global, so a monopolization of say .luzern would have effects in Switzerland and beyond. The legal challenge would for sure affect the delegation of .luzern worldwide. ICANN is bound to respect applicable local law. best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org> Datum: 4. Mai 2018 um 09:14:41 MESZ An: Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone at ebu.ch> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Sorry for the message being cut short, here is the last piece: That would seem to provide the National government the ability to have control over if/who/how a geo TLD could be operated by a local entity. It would not, however, have an impact on an entity outside their jurisdiction that applies for the string, although could
use the objection process if it had strong concerns with the application. Please correct if I have not stated this properly. Kind regards, Martin Sent from my iPhone On 4 May 2018, at 08:09, Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:

> 

>> That would seem to provide the National government the ability to have control over if/who/how a geo TLD could be operated by a local entity. It would not, however, have the

> _______________________________________________

> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list

> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org

> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [4]
 _______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [4] 
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [4] 
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 

Links:
------
[1] https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gcc-v-icann-2014-12-06-en
[2]
https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-03-15-en#2.b
[3] https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
[4] 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/20180507/c6e42951/attachment.html>