Javier,

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

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087

http://rodenbaugh.com

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-Jovet

ALAC

+1-787-396-6511

twitter: @javrua

skype: javier.rua1

https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua

On May 4, 2018, at 3:29 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

Thanks. 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 Martin

is 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.

best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>

Datum: 4. Mai 2018 um 09:14:41 MESZ

An: 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 names

Sorry 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,

Martin

Sent from my iPhone

On 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 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