Javier, and I understand you! And I agree: To me as well it seems to date we haven't really solved any of the "real problems" yet.  We have only re-confirmed some age old principles: For example that all two letter codes are subjected to the ccTLD cloud. "Big news".  We have REFRAINED from finding ANY SOLUTION for the ISO 3166 Alpha-3 code elements OR country&territory names; we simply walked away from it and kept the artificial "status quo": which is that somebody in some future shall make policies for it.  In my book there are two real big complexes that need to be worked on:city name based gTLDs; and a potential further distinction for sizeable cities (right now we have only two city name silos). City names will be BY FAR the bulk of geo name applications;  they deserve special attention. And in the next round applicants will STORM the city name gTLD field."Geo names" (in their widest sense) that haven't been subject to the 2012 AGB.We have STILL no definition of cities, completely ignore the fact that there is a sizeable number of VERY LARGE city entities that are unquestionably as important (in many cases even WAY MORE) than capitals cities or Alpha-2 subnational regions; and only START to talk about the non-AGB cloud.  Alexander Sent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> Date: 8/9/18 00:22 (GMT+02:00) To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. I do understand that Alexander; but what I am trying to either develop or discard is a problem worth solving under the non-AGB geo name category, and I see there are pretty well thought out positions on both sides of the equation. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511twitter: @javruaskype: javier.rua1https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua  On Aug 8, 2018, at 5:16 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: Greg has a point here; we should stick with strings that per the current state of the 2012 AGB review would be protected. "Apache" might receive protections at a later state - for now it's not matching any of the few silos that are protected: not a continent, not a 3166 Alpha-2 region and not a city. But a good reminder that after we found a good solution for cities there is still work to do.  There are manifold examples of city-names that are brands as well. And in an ideal case city and brand are both subjected to the same jurisdiction. However to make such lucky coincidence a primary "general assumption" is premature. City and brand can be easily subject to different jurisdictions. So to claim that somehow we can stop doing our work - because others (courts) will do it: not going to fly. If Apache were a city in Mexico? Canada?  I beg to revisit cases like .shanghai:If nobody applied for .shanghai as a city gTLD: a small brand could snatch away the namespace of 24 million people? Somebody could simply "claim" non-geo use; and just like that get the gTLD handed over? Laughable. We are selling People's Namespaces out to the highest bidders, vultures, "brands". Really?  Sizeable cities need at minimum the same protections as capitals or 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions. Other than brands and Robin - anybody objecting? Thanks, Alexander  -------- Original message -------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: 8/8/18 20:07 (GMT+02:00) To: Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Apache is not a geographic term and therefore not within our remit. Can we stick to discussing  strings where at least one meaning is geographic? Thanks! Best regards, Greg On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:07 AM Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote: All: I think it was Paul that made the point in todays call that this “Apache” question is the type of issue best left to the national law level; but I wonder if it was the other way around: some national US law that forbade the Apache people from applying for and registering a “.apache” string.  Should ICANN feel bound here by US Law? Is International Law relevant? What if any preventative or curative policy be put in place, if any? Please all chip in! Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511twitter: @javruaskype: javier.rua1https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua  On Aug 8, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com> wrote: Dear Jon,   but the community objection process does not apply once a string has been delegated – a community would have to file an objections before.   Kind regards Katrin     DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting www.dotzon.consulting DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin   Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Jon Nevett Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. August 2018 14:41 An: Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.   And that is why we have a community objection process . . . On Aug 8, 2018, at 5:23 AM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote: Sure!   “Thanks Robin! To continue this interesting conversation, a question (anyone can of course chip in) how could this hypothetical be solved preemptively or curatively (a posteriori): What if 1) an “Apache Helicopter Corp.”, a company that incidentally has registered US trademarks for the name “Apache Helicopter”, applied for a “.apache” string; 2) the US government never objected (or paid any attention) to said application, and the string was delegated, 3) yet a representative of the several federally recognized Apache Tribes, a few months later found about this and objected to this “appropriation of their cultural identity-the name of their people”?   PS: My heart wants the Apaches to prevail... “   Javier Rúa-Jovet   +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua    On Aug 8, 2018, at 8:14 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Javier,   Can you please refresh my (our) recollection of that fact pattern? Thanks!   Greg   On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 7:15 AM Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote: Thx Greg!   What would you say to my “Apache Helicopter” fact pattern?   Javier Rúa-Jovet   +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua    On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:33 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Alexander,   Your anger and hurt are heard. Thanks for expressing your feelings so directly.    Let's turn to the facts.   There's no "infringement" here. Overheated rhetoric won't make it so.  Words can have more than one meaning.  If a registry sets up a .brick TLD for use by the brick industry, it does not "infringe" on any right that Brick, New Jersey has.  There is simply no general principle that supports the idea that a "geo use" is a "better" use of a string with multiple meanings than a "non geo use."     There are no "vultures" to be protected from.  They are no more real than Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster or the monster under the bed when you were 6 years old.   Challenge processes (I don't want to use the "C___ R_____" term you have a knee-jerk reaction to) are a well-accepted method, in ICANN and everywhere else. Access to a form of due process does not translate to "anything goes" or "big money wins."  Quite the opposite -- it is a way to arrive at a fair result.  It may translate to "Geos don't always win" -- but that's completely appropriate.   I can't speak for NCSG or for ALAC, but in my view from an end-user perspective, a "geo use" is only one possible use of a multi-meaning string.  Many more end-users may be interested in a .coupon that is used for getting and using coupons that a .coupon that is used for Coupon, Pennsylvania.  There is no inherent preference for "geo uses."  "City constituencies" have the right to apply for appropriate gTLD strings, whether it's .Budapest or .Bucharest or .Bridgeport.  Nothing we do here will change that.     As we move toward a series of consensus calls, it is particularly concerning to see Challenge Processes rejected out of hand and with such divisive rhetoric.  But it's better to know now if challenge processes can be part of a consensus recommendation from this group.  I would hope the answer would be "yes" But, if the answer is "no" -- as this "call to arms" suggests -- then we will have to move forward under those circumstances.  I don't think that will be helpful in reaching consensus on any recommendation, even some of the so-called "easy" ones.   Best regards,   Greg   On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:14 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:       "Curative Rights"?    Geo communities won't even know that vultures and brands are infringing on their identities. Especially not once we go into continuous application mode in a few years.   GAC members should be VERY ALARMED. "Curative Rights" is a thinly veiled eulogy for "anything goes" and "big money wins". The rights of geo communities and their constituents will be TRAMPLED on.   In the 1600s and 1700s Europeans set out to stake claims in every corner of the world. Unchallenged. Their prey being vulnerable and without defense. Colonialism! It wiped out populations of ENTIRE CONTINENTS  (e.g. North America).    What is being peddled here is just the same in the age of claiming DNS land on top level: Venture Capital will marry Vulture Culture - together they will colonize the geo-TLD world. To make big bucks - on the back of vulnerable communities.   Europe, Asia, South America and Africa should stand up to cyber colonialism. It cannot be that "their lands" are brute-force taken AGAIN.    Sizeable cities are as important (and their geo gTLDs as impacting for their city constituents) as small countries. I would wish we collectively mature up and recognize that truth. "Curative Rights" ain't enough. Where are ALAC or the NCSG? It would be THEIR job to defend city constituencies. Do they even know what's playing out here?    Btw: I wish we could stop calling it "governmental support". For many that sounds like FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Nothing could be more wrong. It's the CITY'S representatives who are tasked to provide support. They know the needs of their city best - they have been ELECTED to represent the city's constituent's interests.    Thanks,   Alexander      Sent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: 8/7/18 20:02 (GMT+02:00) To: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. I agree with Greg and would add that many of us would be far less resistant to the concept of “geo names” if the underlying right/privilege provided was a curative right (rather than preventative).  For some, the biggest problem we have with “geo names” is the presumption of restrictions (in this case a “veto power” to a single actor) so moving discussion towards curative rights could be a very useful way of working toward an ultimate consensus.   Thanks, Robin     On Aug 7, 2018, at 9:53 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:   Christopher,   You can’t just throw the word “politically” into the middle of an unsupported claim and expect to be persuasive (or even understood).  I don’t see any reason or reasoning where would find “all geographic names” to be subject to any rules, much less preventative rules.  Quite the contrary.  Can you explain your use of “politically” and what that implies?  Where do you see politics coming into the ICANN policy-making process, and which politics are you referring to?   Curative procedures have been successfully invoked since the dawn of ICANN (and long, long before, in a multitude of settings) to allow someone to assert a claim against another party’s actions on the basis of agreed-upon standards.  To write off the entire concept as “unsuitable,” again without support, seems both extreme and premature.  New curative procedures were created for the 2012 round, and we could adapt those or create something different if we wanted to.  On a policy level, there’s absolutely no reason for curative procedures to be “unsuitable.”  Indeed, for reasons I very recently stated, they are far more suitable than preventative rights for the vast majority of terms with geographic meanings.  Helping them work appropriately is an implementation-level concern that should not impede good policy-making.   As a group trying to reach consensus, we should not put all of our eggs into the one basket of preventative measures — no matter how much some participants want us to do so.  I understand the allure of preventative processes over curative processes — you don’t need to watch anything, you don’t need to initiate anything, you don’t need to prove anything, and you don’t even need to explain anything.  It’s a completely one-sided approach — which is good for one-sided, slam-dunk situations.  Conversely, they are not particularly good where there are two sides to the story.  Perhaps there is a concern that in a “curative” process over terms with geographic meanings, the “objectors” will not be able to succeed very often — that often there really is no basis for a claim.  If that is the case, it is even more critical that we identify and agree upon the bases for these claims — whether they are exercised preventatively or curatively.  We can’t put (or keep) a preventative privilege in place without clear-cut reasons that this privilege exists, and clear-cut reasons that the claim must be granted preventative status.   Preventative rights are equivalent to “guilty until proven innocent,” except that there’s no forum for such proof — it is entirely at the discretion of the privilege-holder.  Curative rights, on the other hand, are “innocent until proven guilty,” with a forum and a process for that determination to be made by an uninterested entity/person(s).  I tend to prefer “innocent until proven guilty” as a general concept.   Best regards,   Greg         On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:22 AM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Dear Greg: I expect that we shall find that, politically, all geographical names will be subject to preventative rules, at least in the first instance. The existing 'curative' procedures appear to me to be quite unsuitable for global application at the level of disagregation that we are currently considering. Regards Christopher     El 7 de agosto de 2018 a las 7:46 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> escribió: All,   Carlos wrote:   I just don't agree that the sole recommendation of WT5 that is going to be measure is a negative one: to restrict delegation of most geographic names. In my view recommendations should be framed in a positive manner, if possible.    This reminded me that we have so far talked almost exclusively about what are generally called "preventive" processes (reserve lists, permission requirements, blocking lists, etc.), and very little about what are generally called "curative" processes (objections, dispute resolution processes, challenge processes, etc.).  By doing so, we've taken half the tools out of the toolkit.   I just finished working on the reconvened IGO-INGO Preventive Rights WG where we were dealing (at this point) with reserving/restricting national Red Cross/Red Crescent society names.  In this case, a preventive rights approach made sense -- the names of the various national societies are essentially unique, identified only with that one entity, third party uses are almost certainly done in bad faith and with bad intent, and there's no real underlying policy disagreement.  In some cases (e.g., name collisions, certain reserved names) there is also a strong technical component.  This is how preventive rights have generally been used in ICANN policy -- for "slam-dunk" cases.   There are few, if any, "slam-dunk" cases in our work.  A good case can be made for 2-letter letter-letter combinations.  Perhaps a good case can be made for some of the remaining classifications in this first set or potential recommendations.  However, as we move "down the list", so to speak, we get further away from "slam-dunk" situations.  We could potentially make more headway on some of the classifications of names if we considered "curative" processes, instead of being so intensely focused on "preventive" rights.  This tends to turn our discussions into "all or nothing" choices -- but this is a false menu, since there are other options aside from the binary "all/nothing" that should be on the menu.   Let's keep this in mind as we move forward.   Greg       On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:34 PM Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote: I agree with Paul and think we should declare agreement where we have it, and build on that to find other agreement down the line.  The process is supposed to involve incremental steps and building blocks along the way, and that is how we will eventually arrive at a consensus.  To take the “nothing until everything” approach will keep us spinning our wheels indefinitely, cause confusion, and risks unexpected results, which is in no one’s interest.   Best, Robin   On Aug 6, 2018, at 2:16 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:   I’m a little concerned with the “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” approach.  This isn’t a contract negotiation, it is a consensus building exercise.  If we have to wait until every topic has been discussed and we think we have 100% agreement on all topics before we take a consensus call on individual topics, this WG will never find an end point.    Best, Paul       From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM To: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.   Dear Co-Leads and Martin: I disagree with the method proposed.  1. It is premature to start consensus calls on certain restricted topics when other more critical topics have not yet been discussed. 2.  Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Regards CW     El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 21:06 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> escribió: Hi Christopher,   In order to progress the building of the Initial Report, the agenda is designed to focus on how we will achieve this and begin to gather recommendations where we find consensus. Item 4 was raised on the last call and members were requested to continue discussions over the email list, although this has been somewhat quiet probably due to holiday periods.    We encourage you to use the email list for elaborating on non-AGB categories, this will then help towards further discussions on the call. By experience of the discussions relating to non-capital cities, please provide a sound argument/rationale for any suggestions for the group to consider, rather than simply stating a request.    Kind regards,   Martin Sent from my iPhone On 6 Aug 2018, at 15:25, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Dear Co-Leads:  May I request that point 4 of the proposed agenda be moved up to point 1. Some participants, including myself, have only persevered with WT5 in-order to discuss the non-AGB terms. These include : -  all other geographical terms -  geographical indications -  several groups of regional, cultural, economic and linguistic names. Thankyou and regards Christopher Wilkinson El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 14:42 Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> escribió: Dear Work Track members,   Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:   1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB   On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5’s work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP’s Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.   As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5’s Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday’s call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... [gnso.icann.org].   If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org.   Kind regards,   WT5 Co-Leads Annebeth Lange Javier Rua Olga Cavalli Martin Sutton               The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.     _______________________________________________ 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   The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.   _______________________________________________ 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   _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5