Dear All,Scope section of the TOR may include the following reference material to identify a Geographic Name/indicator a) A nation’s cartographic programme (e.g.For India its , Survey of India) is likely the most significant user and already invested a lot in determing geographic names/indicator,name of a country/region. b) To identify a geographic name in addition to the Geographical denominations in “section 2.2.1.4.1 in the AGB 2012 which also provides for a definition of what was considered “country & territory names”. i.e. both long-form and short-form along with subdivisions, names listed in ISO 3166-1” , following items should also be considered. i. Complete set of official topographic maps that cover the country at the largest scale available; ii. Complete sets of all other official maps and charts that cover all, or parts, of the country; iii. A collection of local and commercial maps (road, railroad, agricultural); iv. Old, out-of-date and/or historical maps and charts; v. Special books and other publications that contain lists of geographical names (postal guides, shipping guides, national and local gazetteers, railroad and bus timetables); vi. National, regional and commercial atlases and national encyclopedias; vii. Books on national or local geography, geology and history; viii. Books on geographical names and general toponymy; ix. Books and other kinds of publications that deal with various languages used in the country; x. Census data, in, for example, statistical yearbooks; xi. Other yearbooks and special publications, such as mountaineering guides, that are based on the use of geographical names for reference purposes. c) If the reference material that is not easily accessible in paper form can be located through the Internet. However, the quality of the sources of information consulted must be carefully considered. d) It is also to be noted that names of cultural and economic significance which are also geographic names or indicators,should also be considered in such a way that they appropriately reflect the culture and heritage of a region and country. e) Geographical Names as TLD (Top level domain), are sensitive to a Nation and country, should not be delegated without the approval of the respective Governments or public authority. Thanks,Harish Chowdhary,ISOC IETF FELLOWinSIG 2017 FELLOWwww.nixi.in | www.indiaig.in From: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>Sent: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:58:24 GMT+0530To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Referenceand proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to includeother concepts as wellDear GregI will reply to your aggressive tone and language That was used in yr message. The multistakeholder that you described is Your version of multistakehokder in which few peoplelike you wished and attempted to override and impose your views on millions of people who do not have the same possibility as you have from all angles The arrangements to address the geographic name in putting peoples of the world be faced with some fictive Majority of some GNSO overriding and dominating Those millions of people does not works It was imposed in the Jurisdiction but enough Is enough . Pls kindly stop attacking millions of people by referencing them to your So-called multistakeholder Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 6 Dec 2017, at 08:03, Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote: Hello All The only difficulty is multistakeholders do not possess a military or control the police. So in a world which progressively is adopting the Hammurabi Code over the values of libertè egalitè and fraternity, ICANN’s success will determine the future course the world will take. Hence the need for ICANN Board to stand firm on principles. ICANN61 will tell us if an eye for an eye will prevail or the ICANN Bylaws in geonames or in the WHOIS/GDPR conflicts. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate USA Business Development iP +1 646 243 9857 <image001.png> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com On Dec 6, 2017, at 12:57 AM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote: Greg, Thanks for reminding us about the essence of the multistakeholder model. In some ways, it’s indicative of how international and transnational governance models have evolved from a Westphalian Sovereign-Nation-State centered exclusive club, then to a broader International Community of States, that then added entities as subjects of International Law: International Organizations like the UN, International Humanitarian NGOs like Red Cross and Red Crescent, Democratic Supranational Organizations of pooled sovereignty like the European Union, and then the unthinkable: individual persons as bearers of international rights and standing with the rise of regional and universal Human Rights protection regimes. As the relevance of the pure 19th century Nation-State model has progressively morphed, experiments like ICANN become possible: a corporation that although born in a subnational unit of a State, operates with participants and constituencies from all over the Planet (Sovereign States, non-sovereign territories -like my country Puerto Rico-, pr ivate commercial and non-commercial entities and interests, technical constituencies; all working in a mechanism that impacts the evolution of the Internet, within ICANN’s (very limited) DNS remit. It’s a governance model well suited for an ideally borderless and transnational phenomenon like the global interoperable Internet. Multistakeholder global entities like ICANN are quite a new experiment. For some -including myself- the concept that the opinion of one person is as valid as the opinion of a hundred or thousand year old Nation-State is sometimes hard to fathom. I think States naturally perceive multistakeholderism as a disruptive concept, a threat to their model (some States more than others; some up-front and others hypocritically). Multistakeholderism is a very fragile thing; on a cliff; almost a fiction. It can sometimes seem like pure process, mere ritual, and worse: before I began to understand a bit the true merit and added value of it, I though it was an elaborate farce. But It is my belief that multistakeholderism is something to be defended, protected, perfected and further entrenched in the way we do governance at all levels, whether global or local. It requires a lot of work, a lot of diplomacy, intelligence, maturity and patience. And I do admire States that accept multistakeholder “rules”, because they must continually show incredible levels of self-restraint in the face of the pure insolence of some people and entities. But the equation has been historically the opposite: individuals have had to withstand not only insolent, but also violent States - which in any case are run by either insolent or violent Individuals anyways (by the way, some States even have to resist and surv ive their own insolent leaders, like the current US President). But multistakeholderism, I believe, is a step in the right direction for humanity, that is consistent with the way global governance structures have been evolving, that I hope sticks and keeps on expanding, for it grants great legitimacy and strength to the norms that are consensually born through it. Javier Rúa-JovetALAC +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua ; El dic. 6, 2017, a la(s) 12:20 a. m., Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> escribió: The role of governments here is that of one set of stakeholders among many. Governments don't get to be special stakeholders. The essence of the multistakeholder model, rooted in the private sector (broadly defined), is that the people get to speak directly -- without the intermediation of governments. When government representatives speak here, their pronouncements don't carry extra weight. The proposition has been put forth that when stakeholders speak, it is merely their own personal views. If this is true for any stakeholders, it must be true for all. Conversely, if it is not true for some stakeholders, it is not true for any. The latter is clearly the case -- it is not true. The multistakeholder model demands that each of us act in a representative capacity for the stakeholders in our particular community that do not participate directly. This is not the special province of governments. A fundamental truth of ICANN is that it is not and cannot be a "government-led" structure. It is not merely a multistakeholder structure -- it is an equally multistakeholder structure. I share Farzaneh's view that the utopian ideal of the government as nothing more than the representative of the people doesn't really hold true in reality. Governments represent their own interests, which (for self-preservation) need to intersect with the interests of whoever (or whatever) put them in power -- party supporters, big donors, the establishment, etc. That is not meant to invalidate governments -- just to caution against elevating them above other stakeholders in this process. This is particularly true with regard to the topic of strings with geographic meanings (a/k/a geographic names). These strings are not uniquely geographic; they have other meanings and applications. We can't elevate the geographic meaning/application above other meanings/applications -- for that very reason we cannot elevate governments above other stakeholders. Greg On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Bonnie B Mtengwa <bmtengwa@potraz.gov.zw> wrote: Dear Team When relating to geo-Names we cannot avoid talking of Governments, because people in those areas are represented by their Governments, and the Governments appoints its own representatives in the GAC. So whether legitimately elected or appointed, the fact is that Geo-Names are also in the purview of governments. The role of governments then need to be clearly defined in our work, because they are critical if we need to move forward on this issue. Bonnie From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>Date: Monday, 04 December 2017 at 07:14To: <alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: Dear Group, regarding the role of “governments”:People rely on their elected representatives to defend them from (for example) land grabs: e.g. city names, country names, or other geo based gTLDs. In this regard the “Government” doesn’t exercise some “control”: it protects the interests of its citizens! For the People (by the people).In that regard: I see a very POSITIVE role in Governments protecting namespaces from being cyber squatted. So thanks to the GAC: Keep fighting for The People.Alexander.berlin Even for democratic countries the above sounds very optimistic to me. Governments don't always fight for their people they have their self interest and incentives, like many other entities and actors. Governments don't always get elected by their people. Even in democratic countries when you talk about the government you need to be very specific. Government is big. Are you talking about the elected representatives or just some administrative representatives who are appointed not elected? GAC does not gain any legitimacy over other actors just because they are "governments". From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of ArastehSent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:55 PMTo: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Dear All There is no primacy issue here. It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote: Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg ShatanSent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AMTo: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Robin; Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree. It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others. We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process. Greg On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote: Dear Kavouss I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857 <image001.png> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Robin Gross via icann.org 6:48 PM (1 hour ago) <image002.jpg> <image002.jpg> <image002.jpg> within the lines Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w. <image002.jpg> I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD . Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nu anced a bit further in light of the complexities.Reply While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative Regards Kavouss On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote: Hi Robin, Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call. Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote: I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis sh ould recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.Thanks,Robin_______________________________________________Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5___________________... mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5___________________... mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 ; IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5___________________... mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [NIXI is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/nixiindia & Twitter: @inregistry ] This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------