The “few exceptions” seem to be virtually every application where the applicant intended a “non-geo” use but the string was judged to be (among other things) a geo-name.

If we don’t fix this, we’ve failed.

Best regards,

Greg

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 1:44 PM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

+1


________________________________

Von: Rosalía Morales <rosalia.morales@nic.cr>
Datum: 7. September 2018 um 19:42:59 MESZ
An: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com>
Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report

Dear Mike,

Stating that "The compromise of 2012 went too far kowtowing to government demands, holding the entire program hostage” does not seem accurate. As far as I’m concerned, the program went by pretty well for some few exceptions. Taking into account the opinions of other stakeholder groups is not holding the program hostage, is actually how the multistakeholder model works and how this group is supposed to work.  All opinions (not “demands”) are welcomed in this process and are the key elements of ICANN.

Best,
Rosal'ia
[cid:B190111C-4AAD-456E-809F-8934B6CA8935]

On Sep 7, 2018, at 11:14 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote:

went way too far kowtowing to government demands, holding the entire program hostage

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5