April 26, 2018
8:07 p.m.
This is very useful info Jon thanks! In which WT is the community program being evaluated. Somehow we never got to that in the CCT review. In want to take a look at what the new suggestions for community TLDs are. Best On April 26, 2018 1:44:44 PM CST, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> wrote: >Thanks Carlos -- I generally agree with you for sure. > >The community designation was not just based on geography and there >were many problems with how the community evaluation process worked >from all sides. These issues are being addressed by another Work >Track. > >The geographic evaluations worked out a bit better as the rules were >less subjective -- though as we all know there still were some issues. > >Best, > >Jon > >> On Apr 26, 2018, at 2:56 PM, Carlos Raul <carlosraulg@gmail.com> >wrote: >> >> Thank you very much Jon! >> >> If I remember well, (a) the Cities program was less protracted than >the community one, or more successful and (b) the community one was not >(only?) Based on geography. >> >> I would like to hear if you share this appreciation >> >> Carlos Raúl GUTIERREZ >> Apartado 1571-1000 >> San José COSTA RICA >> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018, 12:51 Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> wrote: >> Carlos: >> >> That is why the 2012 round had a community application process. If >the folks you described (e..g .maya) received community, they would get >the TLD even if someone else applied. In my example, if the community >of people along the New River, applied for .NEW and were able to >achieve community, then they would get the TLD even if there were other >applicants. The community TLD process is different than requiring a >city, state or region to proved a letter of non-objection or the >application dies. Letters of non-objection may be appropriate in some >circumstances, but not in others. We need to figure out where we draw >the line. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Jon >> >> >>> On Apr 26, 2018, at 2:17 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. ><carlosraulg@gmail.com <mailto:carlosraulg@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello Jon, >>> >>> Maybe I don’t get the point of your comment on generic/dictionary >words. But I don’t see the issue as complex by far: >>> >>> In my view, if less than 100% of the people that live under some >political borders, or live in more than one political unit and don’t >conform 100% of those units, want a differentiated TLD from the >official ccTLD, they should get a shot based on a different name than >the official country name. It could be a river name, a mountain name, a >valley, a city, a religion or language (or both like .maya), whatever >gives that group a sense of community different than the ISO 2 letter >code and the UN Flag, they should get a shot at it. And by “shot” I >mean apply for delegation even if it was somebody else idea (right of >first refusal). >>> >>> If they don’t apply, somebody else can get it. >>> >>> I don’t want to go over the whole dictionary here. I want a >subsequent round ASAP. >>> >>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez >>> +506 8837 7176 >>> Skype: carlos.raulg >>> Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) >>> >>> On 19 Apr 2018, at 7:18, Jon Nevett wrote: >>> >>> I agree Liz. >>> >>> Also, let's take some real examples of the dictionary term issue we >need to solve. Apparently, two of the oldest rivers in the world >(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_by_age ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_by_age>) are the New >River in the US and the Save river in Africa. >>> >>> Applicants for .NEW or .SAVE undoubtedly would not be applying for >such names due to the rivers nor would they intend that the use of the >TLDs be related to the rivers at all. Should we really have a policy >that requires a letter of non-opposition by the relevant government for >these names? Should the US government and/or the States of North >Carolina, Virginia, or West Virginia have veto rights over whether .NEW >should exist? Should Zimbabwe or Mozambique have veto rights over >.SAVE? .NEW and .SAVE are not edge cases. There are hundreds of these >kinds of terms that also happen to be geographic names. There is a >Coffee City in Texas; Bath in the UK; etc. >>> Perhaps we should retain an expert in toponymy to educate us on the >prevalence of these terms. >>> >>> I do agree with Jorge that we need a framework that provides >predictability, but that framework shouldn't be just giving veto rights >to governments in all cases, which is what requiring letters of >non-opposition would do in fact. We have to come up with a policy that >takes into account generic/dictionary words that also happen to be >geographic terms and the intended uses of such proposed TLDs. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> >>>> On Apr 19, 2018, at 4:58 AM, Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au ><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello Jorge >>>> >>>> I really appreciated your insights. One thing I think needs >further exploration is the notion of "interested applicants and the >affected communities (which normally will be represented by different >Government levels.” >>>> >>>> I don’t think this is true as much as I would like it to be so. I >think, in many jurisdictions, there are direct and very evident >tensions between communities and their “governments” and we can see >plenty of examples of that in global real politick. It is awkward >indeed that ICANN new TLD evaluators might sometimes be in the business >of making decisions about affected communities and applicants for new >top level domains where governments may have explicit interests that >are in direct conflict. The .africa example is a case in point. >>>> >>>> What I don’t want to see is that a legitimate applicant for a top >level domain would be punished/evaluated negatively because a >government entity doesn’t agree with its position/entitlement/raison >d’être. My “freedom of expression” colleagues will articulate these >arguments better than I will do but we need to be aware that >governments and communities’ interests do not necessarily intersect. >>>> >>>> I am looking forward to hearing other views from WT5 members. >>>> >>>> Liz >>>> …. >>>> Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs >>>> .au Domain Administration Ltd >>>> M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 >>>> E: liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> >www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> >>>> >>>> Important Notice >>>> This email may contain information which is confidential and/or >subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named >addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not >use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this >email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message >immediately. >>>> >>>>> On 19 Apr 2018, at 5:05 pm, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch ><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear all >>>>> >>>>> If I may chime in… the 2012 round has shown that some names with >geographic significance which were left out of the 2012 AGB rules on >“geo names” have created and are still creating issues. >>>>> >>>>> What is needed in my opinion is a framework that covers such names >(to what level of granularity is something we would need to decide on) >in order to create predictability and a fair say for the interested >applicants and the affected communities (which normally will be >represented by different Government levels). >>>>> >>>>> As I have mentioned before, according to the available data (for >instance the data circulated prior to the webinar organized in April >2017) the 2012 AGB requirement of a “non-objection letter” by the >relevant public authorities worked well, as it created a good mix of >incentives for applicants and relevant authorities to arrive at >mutually accepted solutions for the delegation of the strings. >>>>> >>>>> This by no means implies to take such names out of the pool of >potential TLD. It just contributes in creating a framework for getting >the right people at the table before the application is submitted and >preempts many potential ex-post conflicts… >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> >>>>> Jorge >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 >[mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Javier >Rua >>>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. April 2018 03:35 >>>>> An: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au ><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> >>>>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >>>>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Geographic terms: additional >categories >>>>> >>>>> Great discussion, Liz & Renata. >>>>> >>>>> Javier Rúa-Jovet >>>>> >>>>> +1-787-396-6511 >>>>> twitter: @javrua >>>>> skype: javier.rua1 >>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua ><https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 18, 2018, at 9:31 PM, Liz Williams ><liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Renata >>>>> >>>>> You have raised some interesting wrinkles. The first is we >mustn’t conflate the application for a domain name with intellectual >property rights. My IP lawyer friends will have different views I am >sure, but, a new top level domain can exist quite happily alongside any >array of IP rights which may exist at the top level of the domain name >system and at the second level in domain name registrations. For >example, to use Jeff’s idea from this morning, .mars can exist >alongsidewww.mars.com <http://www.mars.com/> alongside >www.marstheplanet.com <http://www.marstheplanet.com/> and Jacqueline >Mars (the woman whose family the company is named after). The issue is >to be sure that consumers are not confused and that bad faith use is >not allowed… >>>>> >>>>> And to your second point, communities are not disadvantaged if >they don’t apply for a domain name. Let’s use Murrumbidgee as the >example. It may be that a community or group or geographic area are >not interested and find different ways of expressing themselves >on-line. That is fine. What isn’t fine is if they are constrained >BEFORE they have even have a chance to decide. It is always annoying >and expensive and time consuming if there is contention for a name…that >is why there must be simple mechanisms to resolve that contention. >>>>> >>>>> And to your last point. I think this issue is directly within >scope for the consideration of this group. Governments have >responsibilities around the setting of and implementation of public >policy in their jurisdictions. However, in the context of new top >level domain policy processes, government stakeholders are part of a >much broader constellation of people whose views need to be >considered…and we don’t need an international treaty for that to >happen. >>>>> >>>>> I hope that we can talk about this area in much more detail within >the group. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes. >>>>> >>>>> Liz >>>>> …. >>>>> Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs >>>>> .au Domain Administration Ltd >>>>> M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 >>>>> E: liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> >www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> >>>>> >>>>> Important Notice >>>>> This email may contain information which is confidential and/or >subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named >addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not >use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this >email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message >immediately. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 19 Apr 2018, at 11:16 am, Renata Aquino Ribeiro ><raquino@gmail.com <mailto:raquino@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear Liz >>>>> >>>>> This is a very important discussion and thanks for framing it >simply. >>>>> I am guessing the issue about the Aboriginal community being able >to >>>>> register the name is whether or not they will be competing against >>>>> another company who trademarked that name and who could possibly >sue >>>>> them. >>>>> And maybe they don't even register the domain name but create a >>>>> handcraft company with the river name. >>>>> In that sense, it is not about limiting the registration of a name >but >>>>> ensuring protection for communities which are left vulnerable if >>>>> exclusive registration rights and associated IP rights are given >to >>>>> whoever first registers the name. >>>>> >>>>> But this is probably out of the scope of WT5 since it deals with >>>>> governmental objections and not unrecognized minority communities >or >>>>> treaties without a broader international intergovernmental >acceptance. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Renata >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Liz Williams ><liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello everyone >>>>> >>>>> I wanted to refer back to our call this morning (Australia time) >to provide >>>>> some more examples about the nature of generic words that are also >used for >>>>> important geographic terms. I used three examples this morning >which relate >>>>> to our major river systems which is not dissimilar to the Amazon >River >>>>> example where the rivers flow through different states. In my >example, the >>>>> Murray, Darling & Murrumbidgee rivers are all significant >geographic >>>>> features. The first two are named after people; the third an >Aboriginal >>>>> word in the Wiradjuri language. The Murrumbidgee River flows >through >>>>> several distinct areas of Aboriginal land and forms part of the >Murray River >>>>> system. >>>>> >>>>> We could extend the analysis by including Mount Kosciuszko >National Park >>>>> which includes our highest mountain (and from which the >Murrumbidgee flows.) >>>>> Again, named after a real person (whose name likely doesn’t fit as >a good >>>>> TLD label!) but, nonetheless, is one of our most significant >geographic >>>>> identifiers. >>>>> >>>>> IF we were to conclude that a broader bucket of geographic >identifiers (like >>>>> rivers and places) were to somehow be constrained/limited/banned >what >>>>> purpose would that serve? For example, if the Aboriginal >communities that >>>>> live along the river and identify with that region, why wouldn’t >they be >>>>> welcome to apply for the name? The same could be said of >landowners (like I >>>>> was), tourist enterprises, naturalists, national parks, might also >want to >>>>> create a new “community” top level domain that they can use. The >same could >>>>> be said of the Murray/Darling examples. >>>>> >>>>> There are many many other examples that this group could come up >with which >>>>> shows the way in which humans name geographic features that are >intrinsic >>>>> parts of their culture. From my personal perspective expanding >any >>>>> limitations on what applicants can apply for is a negative idea. >Instead, >>>>> we need to work towards enabling the expansion of the domain name >space to >>>>> suit end users. >>>>> >>>>> And most importantly, we need simple steps (I think we need some >schematic >>>>> to show how this could work in practical evaluation) to understand >how to >>>>> deal with contention and to resolve that contention efficiently >and fairly. >>>>> >>>>> Liz >>>>> …. >>>>> Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs >>>>> .au Domain Administration Ltd >>>>> M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 >>>>> E: liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> >www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> >>>>> >>>>> Important Notice >>>>> This email may contain information which is confidential and/or >subject to >>>>> legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named >addressee only. If >>>>> you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or >copy any >>>>> part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, >please >>>>> notify the sender and delete this message immediately. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list >>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 ><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list >>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 ><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list >>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 ><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list >>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 ><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.