[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report

[Greg Shatan]

The “few exceptions” seem to be virtually every application where the
applicant intended a “non-geo” use but the string was judged to be (among
other things) a geo-name.

If we don’t fix this, we’ve failed.

Best regards,

Greg

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 1:44 PM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

> +1
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Rosalía Morales <rosalia.morales at nic.cr>
> Datum: 7. September 2018 um 19:42:59 MESZ
> An: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com>
> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of
> “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the
> report
>
> Dear Mike,
>
> Stating that "The compromise of 2012 went too far kowtowing to government
> demands, holding the entire program hostage” does not seem accurate. As far
> as I’m concerned, the program went by pretty well for some few exceptions.
> Taking into account the opinions of other stakeholder groups is not holding
> the program hostage, is actually how the multistakeholder model works and
> how this group is supposed to work.  All opinions (not “demands”) are
> welcomed in this process and are the key elements of ICANN.
>
> Best,
> Rosal'ia
> [cid:B190111C-4AAD-456E-809F-8934B6CA8935]
>
> On Sep 7, 2018, at 11:14 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:
> mike at rodenbaugh.com>> wrote:
>
> went way too far kowtowing to government demands, holding the entire
> program hostage
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180907/cb1f7503/attachment.html>