The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name! I would like to second Christopher: While not having created too much havoc in the 2012 round that provision WOULD BE heavily abused in the next round. Other than the trade mark lobby (which is WELL paid to lobby the TM interests): Who ELSE objects Christopher’s suggestion to abandon “the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name”? Somebody OUTSIDE the TM lobby? Or the other way around: Who else seconds Christopher’s suggestion to abandon “the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name”? A geo name is a geo name – once delegated to somebody the constituents and citizens of that geo-location are deprived to utilize the string to identify themselves in the DNS forever. Inacceptable. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:46 PM To: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Christopher wrote: 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) There has been significant— repeated — objection to that proposition, so no, you may not take it that it is agreed in WT5. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that. Greg On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:39 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> > wrote: Good afternoon: With respect, this is the first time that I have perceived that in 2012, Geo-Names Review was different from the Geo-Names Panel. I shall try and get my head around that! Meanwhile, it would clearly be an advantage to have a review function available for ALL Geo-related applications, up front, BEFORE applicants and the mechanisms spend time and money on the approval procedures. I have already posted several comments that would significantly reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications. Pour Memoire: 1. The application should be from an entity within the jurisdiction of the geo-name in question, and the proposed TLD Registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction. There should not be any incorporations in third country tax havens. 2. There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may be applied for by any one entity. 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and during implementation. Regards CW PS: Since all applications for Geo-Names should have received non-objection letters from the appropriate authorities, I might imagine that the scope for String Contention would be considerably reduced if not eliminated.