Its interesting, the idea that the At-Large's role may not be to advocate 'prevention' but, from the foregoing, 'accommodation'.  I tend to agree here.

The facts on the ground determine the state of play and not an emotional or nostalgic rumination.

I have argued that unless someone will tell me how, in policy and absent a commercial transaction, to repatriate, say jamaica.com to the benefit of us Jamaicans, it is a fool's gold.

And to hell with them suckers, even the black-green-and-gold Jamaicans, resident in Jamaica, Queens, NY! Let 'em look out for themselves. Sure, it  likely that we share interests. But I don't think I need to tell you I need no persuasion to favour the interests of the folks in Kingston, Jamaica, whatever those may be. [it will come to you after awhile why I juxtaposed 'Kingston' there! :-)]. 

The genie is out the bottle and may not be returned. At least not if we must act on principle. 

I accept as fate that we all don't arrive at that damascene moment in the same moment of time. But if we can reasonably accept that the moment will come and, with it, likely conflicts, we could accept that we must have a way to moderate, even prevent, the conflict. Then maybe the idea of picking a winner in a broad category and in advance becomes the winning hand.  This is something I had always hoped the At-Large constituency is best positioned to advance. 

Some of us - I believe I can speak for Evan and a few others - have studied the AGB and its attempt to categorize. We have always held that certain categories ought to be prioritized for delegation of a string. Some of us have long argued that it is the category of users that ought to be prioritized in what we defined as 'community' in the AGB.  We argued contemporaneously that what emerged from the attempt to prioritize a 'community applicant' was inevitable. It was manifest that as defined and proceduralized in the AGB, we would have provided a perfect foil for that blind-man-and-the-elephant exercise. His prior knowledge and immediate perception - and the end result of his cogitation - all depended on where he first made contact with the elephant. We predicted that different panels looking at the same set of facts and coming to different conclusions was inevitable. The problem was always definitional.

Defining and prioritizing deserving groups for tld access requires an affirmative action; the close definition of such groups. That is a political act. And those in ascendancy, just like in the realm of politics politics, simply cannot accept that.

Here's the other thing. If you define those and accept the proposition that they must be prioritized for string delegation, you won't need rounds to achieve that outcome. 

It is what it is.

-Carlton 

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================


On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:39 PM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote:
My first reaction to this is similar to Maureen's, I think. WT5 should give further consideration to a "sharing" option to resolve conflicts between governments and applicants with regard to applied-for strings that have both geographic and non-geographic meanings/uses.  This option could be promoted, and a pathway to using the option could be created.  I think it should remain an option to be freely chosen (or not), rather than a preferred outcome.  Technically, it was an option in the prior round, since any applicant could have made a deal with the relevant public authority to engage in a shared use. But, without any real precedent or publicity, it wasn't a natural choice to make.

I doubt we can come up with a policy in WT5 (are there other "geo-names work groups"?) that would prevent this kind of battle in the future.  But I question whether "prevention" should be our goal.  

One way to "prevent" a battle like this is to pick a winner in advance that covers an entire category of battles.  Of course that requires defining a (broad or narrow) category.  To some extent, the current policies do that in several defined categories.  

Christopher suggests the most extreme version of this: "Geographical names must be held available to be used for those geographical purposes."  I assume this means that every string that has any geographic meaning (regardless of any other meanings/uses) should be reserved in perpetuity until an applicant comes along who wants to use the string for a geographical purpose.

The opposite outcome has also been suggested, i.e., other than terms on one of the Applicant Guidebook lists, all other terms are free to be applied for and delegated as gTLDs for any purpose.

Another option is to use one of the existing objection processes, or to create an objection process for this purpose, which would then be resolved through a dispute resolution process,  But I suppose that is not "prevention." 

As for implementing the resolution, I expect a simpler solution, where certain second-level domains (or groups of second-level domains) would be allocated for use by the countries in the region.  For instance, ar.amazon and argentina.amazon could be allocated for use by Argentina, perhaps with further terms of geographic or cultural significance to, e.g., Argentina.  Conceivably, third-level domains could be available for public registration by individuals (e.g., manoff.argentina.amazon) or could be allocated by the public authority.  This doesn't require any financial or commercial relationship except with regard to the costs of implementing and maintaining this by the registry.  (Which raises the question of who is to be the registry in this case...).
Best regards,

Greg


On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 1:53 PM mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

Good evening:  I shall read the details later, but for now just to say that this may be an inevitable compromise  - if agreed - in the light of the mistakes in the 2012 Round, but it is not an example, precedent or a template for other situations in the future.

Geographical names must be held available to be used for those geographical purposes.

Regards

CW


El 19 de septiembre de 2018 a las 17:57 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> escribió:

Intriguing for sure. I'm zeroing in on the language of the resolution,
specifically "*sharing the use of those top-level domains with the ACTO
member states*".

Until someone can show and convince me that the string existed at the
second level in quiet possession without damage alleged to the cultural
heritage and said string as trademark is registered in said states without
wreaking havoc on the cultural heritage associated, that claim was weak, at
best.

The kerfuffle gets real if you follow the money. The value of the string is
accrued and accounted only if it is delegated.

Since any solution that emerge is likely commercial, maybe this is
indicating acceptance of a tithing model as per Amazon the company giving a
little bit of the value of each transaction to member states as they now do
with the Amazon Smile initiative; you shop and they donate to the
customer's selected charitable organisation. Or, fraught as that might be,
Amazon the company collects a use tax on behalf of the member states.

Putting up a web page that extols the many Amazonian virtues cannot be it!

Get the acceptable dollar figure in objective and work the edges. It really
isn't that hard, once we remove the cloak of Potiphar's wife!

-Carlton

==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:59 AM Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

While this is indeed some progress am really curious to see what the
details of the solution will look like, how 1 can effectively stand in 2 or
more places remains a puzzle to solve.

Regards

Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 11:07 Sebastien Bachollet, <sebicann@bachollet.fr>
wrote:

Dear all,
It can be of interest in our discussion about future possible TLDs
All the best
SeB

https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-09-16-en#2.d

Resolved (2018.09.16.12), ICANN's President and CEO is directed to
support the development of a solution for delegation of the strings
represented in the .AMAZON applications that includes sharing the use of
those top-level domains with the ACTO member states to support the cultural
heritage of the countries in the Amazonian region.

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
registration-issues-wg mailing list
registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
registration-issues-wg mailing list
registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
GTLD-WG mailing list
GTLD-WG@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

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
registration-issues-wg mailing list
registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg


--
Greg Shatan

"The Internet is for everyone"