Javier, An extremely similar scenario has happened with .PersianGulf already. Anyone can read up on that situation via the IRP briefing <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gcc-v-icann-2014-12-06-en> and the most recent, resulting Board resolution <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-03-15-en#2.b>. 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