I agree to send the text as it is to the Council. Hiro On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 08:42:26 +0200 Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@uninett.no> wrote:

Colleagues,

After comments from Hiro, Roelof and Martin I have the feeling that we keep the text as it is, even if it could cause problems later. In my opinion there could be problems either way. If the registry flags one intention or declares what to do and then does something else, either way there will be a need to "take the TLD back". And I doubt that ICANN will enforce.

However, my feeling is that Martin is right stating that this is a later battle. We do not know if we succeed in getting the changes we want for geographical names. After we know what DAG version 3 looks like, we could "regroup" and figure out what our next move should be to protect what we think is of national importance.

Please let me know if you think the document now is ready to be sent to the ccNSO council for endorsement.

Best regards, Annebeth

Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk wrote:

...

A very fair point. I think I was the first to use intention. But there remains the question, do we believe that ICANN will enforce? I say I am using the name .china for promoting porcelain. I am allowed it, because the Chinese see it as beneath their dignity to reply. Then I run it as the new .cn without any barriers of administration or rules. Can the Chinese government then object? Not an entirely convincing example as - as a country name - they would need to get approval from the Chinese government. But the idea is there. (Perhaps .holland for the promotion of a particular fabric or .iceland for the UK supermarket chain...?)

But how to respond to lies: that is a later battle? A change of use policy? ;-)

Martin Boyle +44/0 1865 33 22 51 +44/0 7802 973 950

owner-ccnso-members@icann.org wrote on 30/03/2009 17:43:00:

...

I agree "intends" would be better. BUT it would mean the process would have to bring the applicant's intentions to light. There's only one feasible way in this process to do so: to ask (force) him/her to declare his/her intentions with the TLD applied for. So, indeed, no need for (or nu use, the applicant can falsely state intentions) changing the text

Cheers,

Roelof Meijer CEO SIDN

roelof.meijer@sidn.nl www.sidn.nl T: +31 26 3525500 M: +31 611 395775

...

-----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-members@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso- members@icann.org] On Behalf Of HiroHOTTA Sent: maandag 30 maart 2009 16:23 To: Gabriella Schittek Cc: ccnso-members@icann.org; ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-members] Comments on Geographical Names DAG v.2 - your input needed!!!

I support the comments currently written.

<just my impression --> no amendment needed> Although judging whether "the applicant INTENDs to do something" is much difficult than judging whther "the applicant DECLAREs to do something", I understand "INTENTION" is the key we need to say here.

Hiro

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 04:50:57 -0700 Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek@icann.org> wrote:

...

Dear all,

The ccNSO Geographical Names Working Group has written a comment to the Draft Applicant Guidebook, V.2 - please, find this attached.

We need your input on this paper to by Monday, 30th March 2009 latest!

Many thanks,

Gabi