Javier,
i have commented before on this Mike-Javier very interesting side track. I think that there is a lot to learn, and to save and maybe slightly improve in the (a) applications and (b) evaluations of the City applications in the last round.
But I'm afraid that (c) the decision making process is either fatally flawed in the last round and/or for the case of new GeoCommunities ishould be moved to a different instance than the post-transition new-private ICANN.....
Apart from the process view as per above, which seems to be the only leitmotiv so far in the WT-5, i would like to add that in the end, the major risk I see against an "open, globally connected, trusted and secure' internet from this discussion, is that we keep adding restrictions in the use of TLDs. Restrictions in applications, restrictions in evaluations, but over all, restrictions in use (intended or actual) of TLDs may be very very dangerous for the internets health.
By the way, i'm no lawyer in case somebody had failed to notice.
El 2018-05-04 10:17, Javier Rua escribió:
Thanks Mike,Interesting!Does anybody else want to chime in this discussion, this possible "Community gTLD" way forward for some geographic TLDs?Regards,
Javier Rúa-JovetI would answer that question with a loud YES. Indeed it was one of the primary goals of all the "community" discussions and policy development leading up to the AGB and 2012 round. We frequently used Zulu as an example for many years, and Avri has a list of others.
On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Mike,But I wonder if your example is completely analogous. My example presupposes an application by a "national community", that is clearly non sovereign, but with "state-like" interests and presumably a local governance body which might or might not be recognized. Should or could a national or linguistic minority, or indigenous group that is dully constituted be able to apply for a potentially "nationally" contentious string, perhaps with a decent chance of success, even if the sovereign state within which it exists opposes such application?Regards,
Javier Rúa-JovetJavier,An extremely similar scenario has happened with .PersianGulf already. Anyone can read up on that situation via the IRP briefing and the most recent, resulting Board resolution. Essentially, and frankly quite ridiculously, Arab countries don't want that TLD to exist because they call that body of water the Arabian Gulf. [Of course, they could apply to operate the .ArabianGulf TLD....] My client was the only applicant for the TLD, and prevailed in the Arab governments' silly Objection against the application. Thus they should have been awarded the TLD and ICANN was poised to issue the contract.But, the Arab governments persisted, bringing an IRP against ICANN. Incredibly, in by far the most ridiculous IRP decision in ICANN's brief history, ICANN lost that IRP. More incredibly, even though my client was not a party to that IRP, the foolish IRP panel ordered ICANN to terminate my client's application. Perhaps even more incredibly, but rightfully, ICANN has refused to adopt that recommendation. Currently ICANN is deciding what to do with the application..., treating the Arab governments objection as non-consensus GAC Advice, even though the GAC did not issue any such advice.Thus, it is a huge, ridiculous mess, and seems unlikely to conclude any time soon.Best,Mike
On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:21 AM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
All,Thank you for this very active, interesting and constructive thread.A question to anyone willing to tackle it (and I hope it doesn't have a chilling effect on this great conversation!) - Here goes:How could a future policy and AGB deal with the following scenario:A substate people or indigenous community, say the Kurds, applies for a string that depicts a string which they historically claim "as theirs" (.Kurdistan), a string whose very existence would probably be denied by the relevant constituted sovereign authorities since its recognition would help validate the self-determination claim of that sub-state people (and the relevant constituted sovereign state strongly objects to the application). I think this would fall on the category of "geonames not included in AGB".I suspect there would be less contentious cases than .Kurdistan, but I use a potentially highly adversative hypothetical for argument's sake, as a type of "stress test".Javier Rúa-JovetThanks. It seemed your question led in a very specific direction... but I may have misunderstood.
Hope that my feedback clarifies things. I guess we all are aware that national/regional laws have an impact on ICANN and need to be respected insofar they are applicable.
best
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
Datum: 4. Mai 2018 um 09:24:48 MESZ
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>
Cc: mazzone@ebu.ch <mazzone@ebu.ch>, gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
Jorge,
I am not a lawyer and I think many others in the WT are also non-lawyers, so I am trying to clarify the reach of the laws you have specified and understand this better.
Kind regards,
Martin
Sent from my iPhone
On 4 May 2018, at 08:18, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:Hi Martinis that a legal assessment?As you know, the DNS is global, so a monopolization of say .luzern would have effects in Switzerland and beyond.The legal challenge would for sure affect the delegation of .luzern worldwide.ICANN is bound to respect applicable local law.bestJorge________________________________ Von: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Datum: 4. Mai 2018 um 09:14:41 MESZAn: Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone@ebu.ch>Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city namesSorry for the message being cut short, here is the last piece:That would seem to provide the National government the ability to have control over if/who/how a geo TLD could be operated by a local entity. It would not, however, have an impact on an entity outside their jurisdiction that applies for the string, although could use the objection process if it had strong concerns with the application.Please correct if I have not stated this properly.Kind regards,MartinSent from my iPhoneOn 4 May 2018, at 08:09, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote: That would seem to provide the National government the ability to have control over if/who/how a geo TLD could be operated by a local entity. It would not, however, have the_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/l______________________________istinfo/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
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://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