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
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.bestJorge________________________________Von: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>Datum: 4. Mai 2018 um 09:24:48 MESZAn: 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 namesJorge,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,MartinSent from my iPhoneOn 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 listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5