This link could possibly answer your query: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64077479/Heather%20Forrest%... Kind Regards Aslam Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Ph: +1 646 243 9857<tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> [https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPO/MessageImages/e8c178193df64...] RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys. rnaip.com<http://rnaip.com/> On 30 Nov 2017, at 13:14, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: What is the source of these rights Kavouss? What law or agreement creates them? Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 12:35 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> 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 Greg misinterpreted governments overt their legitimate as primacy It is a pity to hear that. There should be no such freedom to ignore the right of other under the concept of multistakeholder . Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:17, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”). I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening. Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration. There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law. Greg On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: 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<mailto: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 Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> <image001.png> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com<http://rnaip.com/> On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Robin Gross via<https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> icann.org<http://icann.org/> 6:48 PM (1 hour ago) [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] within the lines Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w. [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] 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 nuanced 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<mailto: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<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto: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 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 nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Thanks, Robin _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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 list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://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.