Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
"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.RegardsChristopher 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. RegardsCW 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, MartinSent 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 regardsChristopher WilkinsonEl 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-LeadsAnnebeth LangeJavier RuaOlga CavalliMartin 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
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] <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....> .
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 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
------------------------------ 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
Dear All I disagree with the arguments presented by Greg. In particular the e di g phrase that advocate abandoning. To reach consensus on any item unless somebody radically oppose to almost every thing Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2018, at 07:33, 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
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
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] <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....> .
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 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
------------------------------ 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
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
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
Hi group, dear Jon, Agreed: from a theoretical standpoint a geo-community COULD object! The elephant in the room right now are cities. All other 2012 AGB geo policies have been discussed and agreed on. What currently remains “open” are the treatment of cities (especially SIZEABLE cities) and geo-names that have NOT been touched by the 2012 AGB. Presumably of these both silos way over 95% of actual applications will be city names! So it would make great sense if we could clarify how to treat cities. I have worked with several cities in the 2012 round. I have also been involved in community objections (on both ends). A “brand” is well equipped for these “curative right measures”: they have funds ready available, they have in-house legal counsel and brand management but most importantly they have a “brand baby-sitter” like Mark Monitor: highly specialized consultants who keep an eye on ICANN and have the companies brands on watch lists, and will be able to recommend defense measures to the brand! If you ever worked with a community (such as the gay community) or a city (like Berlin – which btw was set up as community applicant with broad participation of local constituencies already in 2005 and applied for as such) then you would know: A city isn’t equipped to “object”. Even if you would identify the 10 most likely responsible individuals within the city Government and make them PERSONALLY aware (not just a letter or an email): they just wouldn’t “get” the ramifications! Way over half of Americans (for example; the same for Europeans) don’t even really know what “new gTLDs” are, or if they are in the know: they have remotely heard about it – but no clue how important these might become in the future. Just imagine any cityname.com domain was available in 1993 (all of them were available), and you would have approached a city major’s office asking them to “secure it” – before somebody else would do? Or to “object” to a registration by a third party? They would have rolled eyes and just remain inactive. Fast forward to 2018 every single city would just DIE to lay their hands on their city.com domain name to conduct their official city marketing. We here at ICANN are lightyears ahead – and suffer from tunnel vision. Additionally cities do not employ the services of the Mark Monitors of this world, they have limited funds (none of which are earmarked for “brand defense”), they have no in-house expertise. In Douglas Adams “Hitchhiker to the Galaxy” an alien species had planned an intergalactic highway – with the earth being smack in the way (and subjected to be destroyed by explosion). In order to alarm the humans on Earth a warning had been posted in advance: to give them ample time to evacuate mankind. Never mind that mankind wouldn’t be able to evacuate themselves; the warning was posted on Alpha Centauri: the nearest star. Well: no earthling ever WAS on Alpha Centauri. The whole thing obviously ended in the earth being destroyed – with just one man (Arthur Dent, the main character of the book) being ACCIDENTALLY saved. ICANN is behaving like that alien species. “Warning signs” will be posted – and of course being ignored. “Worlds” (and city namespaces are actually worlds) will be pulverized. Is it that what we stand for? If somebody wanted to build a highway through earth or my city (virtually spoken) I as a citizen would wish that my elected city representatives had to positively AFFIRM such action; to make sure it is conducted in a way that benefits ME: the Internet user! Especially the NONCOMMERCIAL Internet User! And that NOT “commercial interests” of name grabbers or “brands” are destroying my virtual city equivalent – or abusing it as “investment vehicle” which are poised to be setting policy priorities that benefit shareholders and not city constituents. Objections work fine for “brands”. But this can’t be the way how city-namespaces are being safe-guarded. It’s a colonial overreach and flat-out abuse. ICANN shouldn’t stand for such measures/policies. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Mittwoch, 8. August 2018 15:41 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. And that is why we have a community objection process . . . On Aug 8, 2018, at 5:23 AM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> > Date: 8/7/18 20:02 (GMT+02:00) To: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 < <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM To: Martin Sutton < <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Cc: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> 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 < <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> 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, <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> 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 < <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> 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 <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> 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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> 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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
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<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Date: 8/7/18 20:02 (GMT+02:00) To: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM To: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto: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<mailto: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]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....>. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
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 +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://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
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
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://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 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutsc...> 10823 Berlin <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutsc...> Deutschland - Germany <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutsc...> 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 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28,+10823+Berlin&entry=gmail&sourc...>
*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] <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....> .
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 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
------------------------------
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
Please reconsider excluding the term Apache from the remit of WT5: Apache County was formed during the Tenth Territorial Legislation in 1879 out of the eastern section of Yavapai County; officially all land east of 119°45′ W. Best Aslam
On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://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
I think ICANN cannot ignore what is going on in the world. There is a huge sensitivity to cultural appropriation right now. Minority cultures and peoples are coming forward to reclaim what was taken from them -- and that includes names. Whether we like it or not, it would be very politically incorrect for us to come forward with a plan that allows any enterprise/brand to appropriate a name/string that "belongs", in a cultural sense, to a particular group, especially an indigenous group -- something like Apache, for example. Marita On 8/8/2018 7:27 PM, Aslam Mohamed wrote:
Please reconsider excluding the term Apache from the remit of WT5: Apache County was formed during the Tenth Territorial Legislation in 1879 out of the eastern section of Yavapai County; officially all land east of 119°45′ W.
Best Aslam
On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
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 <mailto: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
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com <mailto: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 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutsc...> 10823 Berlin <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutsc...> Deutschland - Germany <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutsc...> Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting <mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting <http://www.dotzon.consulting>
DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28,+10823+Berlin&entry=gmail&sourc...>
*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:javrua@gmail.com>> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Date: 8/7/18 20:02 (GMT+02:00) To: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>*On Behalf Of***lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>Wilkinson *Sent:*Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM *To:*Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Cc:*gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto: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 <mailto: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-gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....>.
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please emailgnso-secs@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
Thanks Marita, all, for all these great comments for and against. I think this is goes to the crux of Non-AGB terms discussion. Countries and Territories’ names are extremely well protected, but that doesn’t seem to be the case for substate peoples / indigenous peoples / national minorities who are either completely out of the information loop or even possibly by some national governments from asserting their ethnic/cultural or (sociologically) “national” identities. And these identities are sometimes associated to an important piece of land where that indigenous or substate people exists. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 4:55 PM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
I think ICANN cannot ignore what is going on in the world. There is a huge sensitivity to cultural appropriation right now. Minority cultures and peoples are coming forward to reclaim what was taken from them -- and that includes names. Whether we like it or not, it would be very politically incorrect for us to come forward with a plan that allows any enterprise/brand to appropriate a name/string that "belongs", in a cultural sense, to a particular group, especially an indigenous group -- something like Apache, for example.
Marita
On 8/8/2018 7:27 PM, Aslam Mohamed wrote: Please reconsider excluding the term Apache from the remit of WT5: Apache County was formed during the Tenth Territorial Legislation in 1879 out of the eastern section of Yavapai County; officially all land east of 119°45′ W.
Best Aslam
On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://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
_______________________________________________ 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
+1 Javier I hope no draft goes out before a full discussion on non-AGB geos --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-08 15:09, Javier Rua escribió:
Thanks Marita, all, for all these great comments for and against. I think this is goes to the crux of Non-AGB terms discussion. Countries and Territories' names are extremely well protected, but that doesn't seem to be the case for substate peoples / indigenous peoples / national minorities who are either completely out of the information loop or even possibly by some national governments from asserting their ethnic/cultural or (sociologically) "national" identities. And these identities are sometimes associated to an important piece of land where that indigenous or substate people exists.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 4:55 PM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
I think ICANN cannot ignore what is going on in the world. There is a huge sensitivity to cultural appropriation right now. Minority cultures and peoples are coming forward to reclaim what was taken from them -- and that includes names. Whether we like it or not, it would be very politically incorrect for us to come forward with a plan that allows any enterprise/brand to appropriate a name/string that "belongs", in a cultural sense, to a particular group, especially an indigenous group -- something like Apache, for example.
Marita On 8/8/2018 7:27 PM, Aslam Mohamed wrote: Please reconsider excluding the term Apache from the remit of WT5: Apache County was formed during the Tenth Territorial Legislation in 1879 out of the eastern section of Yavapai County; officially all land east of 119°45′ W.
Best Aslam
On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://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 [1] 10823 Berlin [1] Deutschland - Germany [1] Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting www.dotzon.consulting [2]
DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin [3]
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] [4].
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 [5]
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [5]
------------------------- 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 [6] _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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 Links: ------ [1] https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutschland+-+Germany&entry=gmail&source=g [2] http://www.dotzon.consulting [3] https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28,+10823+Berlin&entry=gmail&source=g [4] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472632128&sdata=me4M2xocdDENZhUf8U%2FfsplZO3q09h%2FivOZ%2FOORwgPE%3D&reserved=0 [5] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0 [6] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
On the other hand, ICANN cannot serve as a supranational legislator to “fill in the blanks” that some believe local governments have missed in their legislation to protect indigenous rights. We have to be realistic about ICANN’s narrow mandate. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 3:56 PM To: 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 think ICANN cannot ignore what is going on in the world. There is a huge sensitivity to cultural appropriation right now. Minority cultures and peoples are coming forward to reclaim what was taken from them -- and that includes names. Whether we like it or not, it would be very politically incorrect for us to come forward with a plan that allows any enterprise/brand to appropriate a name/string that "belongs", in a cultural sense, to a particular group, especially an indigenous group -- something like Apache, for example. Marita On 8/8/2018 7:27 PM, Aslam Mohamed wrote: Please reconsider excluding the term Apache from the remit of WT5: Apache County was formed during the Tenth Territorial Legislation in 1879 out of the eastern section of Yavapai County; officially all land east of 119°45′ W. Best Aslam On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: 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<mailto: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 +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fjavrua&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936034816&sdata=aWyQM5wv0HQU7c9%2BCDtQnq8gOrZHdYJrXDuxLURhAkg%3D&reserved=0> On Aug 8, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com<mailto: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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.google...> 10823 Berlin<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.google...> Deutschland - Germany<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.google...> Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dotzon.c...> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.google...> Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:javrua@gmail.com>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fjavrua&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936074846&sdata=nDawPGsI8Q9%2BsCwYozFJIrDp1lmecwPOlasoeyh%2FKlA%3D&reserved=0> On Aug 8, 2018, at 8:14 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fjavrua&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936084854&sdata=sxJLj%2BK3y4s5%2FqhoneGMAkpxv0FHLj76JBnpYDOFjb8%3D&reserved=0> On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:33 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Date: 8/7/18 20:02 (GMT+02:00) To: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM To: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto: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<mailto: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]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....>. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936094863&sdata=mRMbkEFnbAhdYvgZCMh5PKPSkxi%2BQytSvtT%2FiiAImqg%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936104876&sdata=lL1w3S8J0jQdg9gF1nJvX4sgZ0vjQJga5Hgb5kfpNOo%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ 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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936114880&sdata=ugDPdPZlMKxPtWsm%2BfFTa3OS7OV6I1rX1eMPflj6BLs%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936114880&sdata=ugDPdPZlMKxPtWsm%2BfFTa3OS7OV6I1rX1eMPflj6BLs%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936124888&sdata=9DY6zXLgIeZnJNgllaOtS5mN8uz%2For%2B1dxtyRuVPXOM%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936124888&sdata=9DY6zXLgIeZnJNgllaOtS5mN8uz%2For%2B1dxtyRuVPXOM%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936134897&sdata=wPd%2FqLrmFLKBY0Em0HuFgLjYZXtljWpaEjQmz2SLlJ4%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936144910&sdata=R6yXO%2BIqD4FmsMTFuCFTGHKOm2oef0vuD8CGhIEOum8%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936144910&sdata=R6yXO%2BIqD4FmsMTFuCFTGHKOm2oef0vuD8CGhIEOum8%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936154914&sdata=3B%2FIuUHZQQr%2BdqIqXr%2F0meblt5jCl61tAG8xZ2rzX24%3D&reserved=0>
Very valid point, Paul. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 5:16 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
On the other hand, ICANN cannot serve as a supranational legislator to “fill in the blanks” that some believe local governments have missed in their legislation to protect indigenous rights. We have to be realistic about ICANN’s narrow mandate.
Best, Paul
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 3:56 PM To: 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 think ICANN cannot ignore what is going on in the world. There is a huge sensitivity to cultural appropriation right now. Minority cultures and peoples are coming forward to reclaim what was taken from them -- and that includes names. Whether we like it or not, it would be very politically incorrect for us to come forward with a plan that allows any enterprise/brand to appropriate a name/string that "belongs", in a cultural sense, to a particular group, especially an indigenous group -- something like Apache, for example.
Marita
On 8/8/2018 7:27 PM, Aslam Mohamed wrote: Please reconsider excluding the term Apache from the remit of WT5: Apache County was formed during the Tenth Territorial Legislation in 1879 out of the eastern section of Yavapai County; officially all land east of 119°45′ W.
Best Aslam
On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://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
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Paul as long as they have a specific geographic area, where they can live, set up a casino, apply some of their traditions, language and other cultural/social artefacts of their own as their own rules or laws, I think YES, WT5 should take a look. if they don't have any usable geographic space of their own (Kurds in Turkey) the no, we should stay off. cheers --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-08 15:16, McGrady, Paul D. escribió:
On the other hand, ICANN cannot serve as a supranational legislator to "fill in the blanks" that some believe local governments have missed in their legislation to protect indigenous rights. We have to be realistic about ICANN's narrow mandate.
Best,
Paul
FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> ON BEHALF OF Marita Moll SENT: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 3:56 PM TO: 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 think ICANN cannot ignore what is going on in the world. There is a huge sensitivity to cultural appropriation right now. Minority cultures and peoples are coming forward to reclaim what was taken from them -- and that includes names. Whether we like it or not, it would be very politically incorrect for us to come forward with a plan that allows any enterprise/brand to appropriate a name/string that "belongs", in a cultural sense, to a particular group, especially an indigenous group -- something like Apache, for example.
Marita
On 8/8/2018 7:27 PM, Aslam Mohamed wrote:
Please reconsider excluding the term Apache from the remit of WT5:
Apache County was formed during the Tenth Territorial Legislation in 1879 out of the eastern section of Yavapai County; officially all land east of 119°45′ W.
Best
Aslam
On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
+1-787-396-6511
twitter: @javrua
skype: javier.rua1
https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua [1]
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 [2] 10823 Berlin [3] Deutschland - Germany [3] Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting www.dotzon.consulting [4]
DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin [5]
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 [6]
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 [7]
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] [8].
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 [9]
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [10]
------------------------- 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 [14] _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [14] _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [15] _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [15]
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [11]
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [12]
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [12]
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [13] _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 Links: ------ [1] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fjavrua&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936034816&sdata=aWyQM5wv0HQU7c9%2BCDtQnq8gOrZHdYJrXDuxLURhAkg%3D&reserved=0 [2] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2F%3Fq%3DAkazienstrasse%2B28%2B%250D%250A10823%2BBerlin%2B%250D%250ADeutschland%2B-%2BGermany%26entry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936044825&sdata=9c1ElVndZMu55M3tevFm74ieeMLM5HwrooatPuwNmnc%3D&reserved=0 [3] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2F%3Fq%3DAkazienstrasse%2B28%2B%250D%250A10823%2BBerlin%2B%250D%250ADeutschland%2B-%2BGermany%26entry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936054833&sdata=pMNlXTJHZ86gelVXd%2Fs8rBEB1Xd8C8HuPfLEcTyVs78%3D&reserved=0 [4] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dotzon.consulting&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936064842&sdata=aSfa8maW7YGB6ePJXnYavZpgCJ%2FyZwLKol%2Bd5Brug7I%3D&reserved=0 [5] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2F%3Fq%3DAkazienstrasse%2B28%2C%2B10823%2BBerlin%26entry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936064842&sdata=Ihbt8x8yupz9KUqgOz9LdhBwVkxI%2FM%2FL%2B6yKq7prS10%3D&reserved=0 [6] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fjavrua&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936074846&sdata=nDawPGsI8Q9%2BsCwYozFJIrDp1lmecwPOlasoeyh%2FKlA%3D&reserved=0 [7] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fjavrua&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936084854&sdata=sxJLj%2BK3y4s5%2FqhoneGMAkpxv0FHLj76JBnpYDOFjb8%3D&reserved=0 [8] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936084854&sdata=v1ot36Yh9urb%2Fxmslq8m8PDAjU%2FhwHXdzL4DjeRjJag%3D&reserved=0 [9] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936094863&sdata=mRMbkEFnbAhdYvgZCMh5PKPSkxi%2BQytSvtT%2FiiAImqg%3D&reserved=0 [10] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936104876&sdata=lL1w3S8J0jQdg9gF1nJvX4sgZ0vjQJga5Hgb5kfpNOo%3D&reserved=0 [11] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936134897&sdata=wPd%2FqLrmFLKBY0Em0HuFgLjYZXtljWpaEjQmz2SLlJ4%3D&reserved=0 [12] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936144910&sdata=R6yXO%2BIqD4FmsMTFuCFTGHKOm2oef0vuD8CGhIEOum8%3D&reserved=0 [13] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936154914&sdata=3B%2FIuUHZQQr%2BdqIqXr%2F0meblt5jCl61tAG8xZ2rzX24%3D&reserved=0 [14] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936114880&sdata=ugDPdPZlMKxPtWsm%2BfFTa3OS7OV6I1rX1eMPflj6BLs%3D&reserved=0 [15] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C803d5b23791d4b65c74708d5fd716b77%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636693585936124888&sdata=9DY6zXLgIeZnJNgllaOtS5mN8uz%2For%2B1dxtyRuVPXOM%3D&reserved=0
Thanks Marita. Very well said. I support this point of view fully --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-08 14:55, Marita Moll escribió:
I think ICANN cannot ignore what is going on in the world. There is a huge sensitivity to cultural appropriation right now. Minority cultures and peoples are coming forward to reclaim what was taken from them -- and that includes names. Whether we like it or not, it would be very politically incorrect for us to come forward with a plan that allows any enterprise/brand to appropriate a name/string that "belongs", in a cultural sense, to a particular group, especially an indigenous group -- something like Apache, for example.
Marita On 8/8/2018 7:27 PM, Aslam Mohamed wrote: Please reconsider excluding the term Apache from the remit of WT5: Apache County was formed during the Tenth Territorial Legislation in 1879 out of the eastern section of Yavapai County; officially all land east of 119°45′ W.
Best Aslam
On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://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 [1] 10823 Berlin [1] Deutschland - Germany [1] Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting www.dotzon.consulting [2]
DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin [3]
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] [4].
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 [5]
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [5]
------------------------- 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 [6] _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 Links: ------ [1] https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutschland+-+Germany&entry=gmail&source=g [2] http://www.dotzon.consulting [3] https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28,+10823+Berlin&entry=gmail&source=g [4] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472632128&sdata=me4M2xocdDENZhUf8U%2FfsplZO3q09h%2FivOZ%2FOORwgPE%3D&reserved=0 [5] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0 [6] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Thanks, Marita. These are interesting thoughts. We are not working in a vacuum, and as you say, there is a huge sensitivity to culture in the world now. And one thing that makes the difference between a second level domain and a top level domain is that it is only one entity that can be represented through a top level domain. When it is registered, it is gone. And as you say, whether we like it or not, and even if it is policy we are making, not regulation, there are other entities out there that keep an eye on us that are very aware of the interests of countries, communities and cultures to be taken care of. In many ways also politics influence what we do. Kind regards, Annebeth From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> Date: Wednesday, 8 August 2018 at 22:56 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <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 think ICANN cannot ignore what is going on in the world. There is a huge sensitivity to cultural appropriation right now. Minority cultures and peoples are coming forward to reclaim what was taken from them -- and that includes names. Whether we like it or not, it would be very politically incorrect for us to come forward with a plan that allows any enterprise/brand to appropriate a name/string that "belongs", in a cultural sense, to a particular group, especially an indigenous group -- something like Apache, for example. Marita On 8/8/2018 7:27 PM, Aslam Mohamed wrote: Please reconsider excluding the term Apache from the remit of WT5: Apache County was formed during the Tenth Territorial Legislation in 1879 out of the eastern section of Yavapai County; officially all land east of 119°45′ W. Best Aslam On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: 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<mailto: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 +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua On Aug 8, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com<mailto: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<https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutsc...> 10823 Berlin<https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutsc...> Deutschland - Germany<https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutsc...> Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin<https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28,+10823+Berlin&entry=gmail&sourc...> Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:javrua@gmail.com>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Date: 8/7/18 20:02 (GMT+02:00) To: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM To: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto: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<mailto: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]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....>. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Great point. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 9, 2018, at 6:52 AM, Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no> wrote:
Thanks, Marita.
These are interesting thoughts. We are not working in a vacuum, and as you say, there is a huge sensitivity to culture in the world now. And one thing that makes the difference between a second level domain and a top level domain is that it is only one entity that can be represented through a top level domain. When it is registered, it is gone.
And as you say, whether we like it or not, and even if it is policy we are making, not regulation, there are other entities out there that keep an eye on us that are very aware of the interests of countries, communities and cultures to be taken care of. In many ways also politics influence what we do.
Kind regards, Annebeth
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> Date: Wednesday, 8 August 2018 at 22:56 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <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 think ICANN cannot ignore what is going on in the world. There is a huge sensitivity to cultural appropriation right now. Minority cultures and peoples are coming forward to reclaim what was taken from them -- and that includes names. Whether we like it or not, it would be very politically incorrect for us to come forward with a plan that allows any enterprise/brand to appropriate a name/string that "belongs", in a cultural sense, to a particular group, especially an indigenous group -- something like Apache, for example.
Marita
On 8/8/2018 7:27 PM, Aslam Mohamed wrote: Please reconsider excluding the term Apache from the remit of WT5: Apache County was formed during the Tenth Territorial Legislation in 1879 out of the eastern section of Yavapai County; officially all land east of 119°45′ W.
Best Aslam
On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://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
_______________________________________________ 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
Thanks Aslam, I support your point that we have not (yet) sent all apache people to live in the cloud and they may recognize some parts of North America as their (non ISO) geographic homeland --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-08 11:27, Aslam Mohamed escribió:
Please reconsider excluding the term Apache from the remit of WT5: Apache County was formed during the Tenth Territorial Legislation in 1879 out of the eastern section of Yavapai County; officially all land east of 119°45′ W.
Best Aslam
On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://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 [1] 10823 Berlin [1] Deutschland - Germany [1] Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting www.dotzon.consulting [2]
DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin [3]
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] [4].
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 [5]
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [5]
------------------------- 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 [6] _______________________________________________ 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 Links: ------ [1] https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutschland+-+Germany&entry=gmail&source=g [2] http://www.dotzon.consulting [3] https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28,+10823+Berlin&entry=gmail&source=g [4] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472632128&sdata=me4M2xocdDENZhUf8U%2FfsplZO3q09h%2FivOZ%2FOORwgPE%3D&reserved=0 [5] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0 [6] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Well, this just goes to show that just about anything can be a geographic term, among other things. Apache County is a place, specifically a county in the State of Arizona. So "Apache County" is a place and is within the remit of our discussions. But "Apache" is not a place. So my point stands. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:27 PM Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam@gmail.com> wrote:
Please reconsider excluding the term Apache from the remit of WT5: Apache County was formed during the Tenth Territorial Legislation in 1879 out of the eastern section of Yavapai County; officially all land east of 119°45′ W.
Best Aslam
On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://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 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutsc...> 10823 Berlin <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutsc...> Deutschland - Germany <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutsc...> 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 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28,+10823+Berlin&entry=gmail&sourc...>
*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] <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....> .
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 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
------------------------------
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
Interesting! Do you think “ApacheNation”, “ApacheTerritory”, “ApacheCountry” or “ApacheReservation” would be geo terms? Others? Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://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
They would be.
On Aug 8, 2018, at 2:18 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting! Do you think “ApacheNation”, “ApacheTerritory”, “ApacheCountry” or “ApacheReservation” would be geo terms?
Others?
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://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
All: This is the level of conversation between work track members that could be good to make interesting non-AGB name policy. Keep it up! Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 2:23 PM, Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam@gmail.com> wrote:
They would be.
On Aug 8, 2018, at 2:18 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting! Do you think “ApacheNation”, “ApacheTerritory”, “ApacheCountry” or “ApacheReservation” would be geo terms?
Others?
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://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
“ApacheNation”, “ApacheTerritory”, “ApacheCountry” or “ApacheReservation” are certainly not geo terms. They do not identify specific places. There are several "Apache Nations" but none of them are places. "Apache Nation" is sometimes used colloquially to refer to one nation or all of them. But still, not a place. Apache Territory is a 1958 film starring Rory Calhoun. Also not a place. There are a number of Apache reservations, but none is simply called Apache Reservation. For instance, there is the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation in Arizona (but not in Apache County), which is a place. It is the home of the San Carlos Apache Nation, which is not a place. Apache Country is a 1952 film starring Gene Autry. Still not a place, though "Apache Country" is also used colloquially to refer to Southeastern Arizona, particularly for travel and tourism purposes, but it has no formally defined boundaries or status. (FYI, Apache County is not in "Apache Country.") I write this with the greatest respect for the Apache Nations, and in particular the San Carlos Apache Nation. But that doesn't change the facts. We need to avoid "geo-creep." Best regards, Greeg On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:25 PM Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
This is the level of conversation between work track members that could be good to make interesting non-AGB name policy. Keep it up!
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 2:23 PM, Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam@gmail.com> wrote:
They would be.
On Aug 8, 2018, at 2:18 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting! Do you think “ApacheNation”, “ApacheTerritory”, “ApacheCountry” or “ApacheReservation” would be geo terms?
Others?
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://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 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutsc...> 10823 Berlin <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutsc...> Deutschland - Germany <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutsc...> 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 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28,+10823+Berlin&entry=gmail&sourc...>
*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] <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....> .
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 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
------------------------------
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
Dear Greg Apache is a town in Caddo County, Oklahoma, USA. WT5 must keep an open mind to make policy and research this further before shutting it out. Best Aslam.
On Aug 9, 2018, at 12:11 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
“ApacheNation”, “ApacheTerritory”, “ApacheCountry” or “ApacheReservation” are certainly not geo terms. They do not identify specific places.
There are several "Apache Nations" but none of them are places. "Apache Nation" is sometimes used colloquially to refer to one nation or all of them. But still, not a place. Apache Territory is a 1958 film starring Rory Calhoun. Also not a place. There are a number of Apache reservations, but none is simply called Apache Reservation. For instance, there is the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation in Arizona (but not in Apache County), which is a place. It is the home of the San Carlos Apache Nation, which is not a place. Apache Country is a 1952 film starring Gene Autry. Still not a place, though "Apache Country" is also used colloquially to refer to Southeastern Arizona, particularly for travel and tourism purposes, but it has no formally defined boundaries or status. (FYI, Apache County is not in "Apache Country.")
I write this with the greatest respect for the Apache Nations, and in particular the San Carlos Apache Nation. But that doesn't change the facts.
We need to avoid "geo-creep."
Best regards,
Greeg
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:25 PM Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote: All:
This is the level of conversation between work track members that could be good to make interesting non-AGB name policy. Keep it up!
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 2:23 PM, Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam@gmail.com> wrote:
They would be.
On Aug 8, 2018, at 2:18 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting! Do you think “ApacheNation”, “ApacheTerritory”, “ApacheCountry” or “ApacheReservation” would be geo terms?
Others?
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://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
Then my prior point stands — just about anything can be a geo term, even when it is not primarily a geo term. “Apache” is certainly not primarily a geo term, even though this place (pop. 1444) exists. And the reason this place exists? This is on land that was once part of a reservation, until the Apaches (and Kiowa and Comanche) were kicked out of their reservation in Oklahoma, forced to move west, and the land was opened to non-Native American settlement. This location was picked as a townsite by the offIcial in charge, and the name was then picked by the railroad that came through and helped destroy the reservation. So, this name is really a great insult to the Apache people. In any event, we are certainly not going to protect every town name, so this game of “find the obscure geographic use of a non-geographic term” is amusing but irrelevant. Best regards, Greg On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 12:49 AM Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg
*Apache* is a town in Caddo County <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caddo_County,_Oklahoma>, Oklahoma <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma>, USA <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States>.
WT5 must keep an open mind to make policy and research this further before shutting it out.
Best Aslam.
On Aug 9, 2018, at 12:11 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
“ApacheNation”, “ApacheTerritory”, “ApacheCountry” or “ApacheReservation” are certainly not geo terms. They do not identify specific places.
There are several "Apache Nations" but none of them are places. "Apache Nation" is sometimes used colloquially to refer to one nation or all of them. But still, not a place. Apache Territory is a 1958 film starring Rory Calhoun. Also not a place. There are a number of Apache reservations, but none is simply called Apache Reservation. For instance, there is the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation in Arizona (but not in Apache County), which is a place. It is the home of the San Carlos Apache Nation, which is not a place. Apache Country is a 1952 film starring Gene Autry. Still not a place, though "Apache Country" is also used colloquially to refer to Southeastern Arizona, particularly for travel and tourism purposes, but it has no formally defined boundaries or status. (FYI, Apache County is not in "Apache Country.")
I write this with the greatest respect for the Apache Nations, and in particular the San Carlos Apache Nation. But that doesn't change the facts.
We need to avoid "geo-creep."
Best regards,
Greeg
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:25 PM Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
This is the level of conversation between work track members that could be good to make interesting non-AGB name policy. Keep it up!
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 2:23 PM, Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam@gmail.com> wrote:
They would be.
On Aug 8, 2018, at 2:18 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting! Do you think “ApacheNation”, “ApacheTerritory”, “ApacheCountry” or “ApacheReservation” would be geo terms?
Others?
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://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 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutsc...> 10823 Berlin <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutsc...> Deutschland - Germany <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutsc...> 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 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28,+10823+Berlin&entry=gmail&sourc...>
*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] <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....> .
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 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
------------------------------
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
In many opportunities I agreed with Greg. In this no. If we come to define something about a domain name analyzing whether or not it may be an insult, we are not doing the right thing, that does not correspond to us. We have to look for general definitions that do not involve that type of opinion. Regards Alberto De: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> En nombre de Greg Shatan Enviado el: jueves, 09 de agosto de 2018 02:11 a.m. Para: Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam@gmail.com> CC: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Then my prior point stands — just about anything can be a geo term, even when it is not primarily a geo term. “Apache” is certainly not primarily a geo term, even though this place (pop. 1444) exists. And the reason this place exists? This is on land that was once part of a reservation, until the Apaches (and Kiowa and Comanche) were kicked out of their reservation in Oklahoma, forced to move west, and the land was opened to non-Native American settlement. This location was picked as a townsite by the offIcial in charge, and the name was then picked by the railroad that came through and helped destroy the reservation. So, this name is really a great insult to the Apache people. In any event, we are certainly not going to protect every town name, so this game of “find the obscure geographic use of a non-geographic term” is amusing but irrelevant. Best regards, Greg On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 12:49 AM Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam@gmail.com <mailto:gmohamedaslam@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear Greg Apache is a town in <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caddo_County,_Oklahoma> Caddo County, <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma> Oklahoma, <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States> USA. WT5 must keep an open mind to make policy and research this further before shutting it out. Best Aslam. On Aug 9, 2018, at 12:11 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > wrote: “ApacheNation”, “ApacheTerritory”, “ApacheCountry” or “ApacheReservation” are certainly not geo terms. They do not identify specific places. There are several "Apache Nations" but none of them are places. "Apache Nation" is sometimes used colloquially to refer to one nation or all of them. But still, not a place. Apache Territory is a 1958 film starring Rory Calhoun. Also not a place. There are a number of Apache reservations, but none is simply called Apache Reservation. For instance, there is the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation in Arizona (but not in Apache County), which is a place. It is the home of the San Carlos Apache Nation, which is not a place. Apache Country is a 1952 film starring Gene Autry. Still not a place, though "Apache Country" is also used colloquially to refer to Southeastern Arizona, particularly for travel and tourism purposes, but it has no formally defined boundaries or status. (FYI, Apache County is not in "Apache Country.") I write this with the greatest respect for the Apache Nations, and in particular the San Carlos Apache Nation. But that doesn't change the facts. We need to avoid "geo-creep." Best regards, Greeg On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:25 PM Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com <mailto:javrua@gmail.com> > wrote: All: This is the level of conversation between work track members that could be good to make interesting non-AGB name policy. Keep it up! Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua On Aug 8, 2018, at 2:23 PM, Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam@gmail.com <mailto:gmohamedaslam@gmail.com> > wrote: They would be. On Aug 8, 2018, at 2:18 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com <mailto:javrua@gmail.com> > wrote: Interesting! Do you think “ApacheNation”, “ApacheTerritory”, “ApacheCountry” or “ApacheReservation” would be geo terms? Others? Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > wrote: 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 <mailto: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 +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua On Aug 8, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com <mailto: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 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutsc...> 10823 Berlin <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutsc...> Deutschland - Germany <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutsc...> Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting <mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting <http://www.dotzon.consulting> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin <https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28,+10823+Berlin&entry=gmail&sourc...> Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:javrua@gmail.com> > Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> > Date: 8/7/18 20:02 (GMT+02:00) To: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 < <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM To: Martin Sutton < <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Cc: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> 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 < <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> 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, <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> 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 < <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> 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 <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> 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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> 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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
I see your point, Greg. I guess a question remains regarding how to assign a policy value, from ICANN’s perspective (in this case for GeoNames applications processes), to the territorial base of a substate/indigenous people; to somehow consider that interest fairly, if or when a truly legitimate rep of that people wished to apply for / or object to the delegation of the pertinent string. Perhaps the “Community Priority Evaluation Process” already deals with part of this problem? Comments? Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 9, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Alberto Soto <alberto@soto.net.ar> wrote:
In many opportunities I agreed with Greg. In this no. If we come to define something about a domain name analyzing whether or not it may be an insult, we are not doing the right thing, that does not correspond to us. We have to look for general definitions that do not involve that type of opinion.
Regards
Alberto
De: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> En nombre de Greg Shatan Enviado el: jueves, 09 de agosto de 2018 02:11 a.m. Para: Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam@gmail.com> CC: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Then my prior point stands — just about anything can be a geo term, even when it is not primarily a geo term. “Apache” is certainly not primarily a geo term, even though this place (pop. 1444) exists.
And the reason this place exists? This is on land that was once part of a reservation, until the Apaches (and Kiowa and Comanche) were kicked out of their reservation in Oklahoma, forced to move west, and the land was opened to non-Native American settlement. This location was picked as a townsite by the offIcial in charge, and the name was then picked by the railroad that came through and helped destroy the reservation. So, this name is really a great insult to the Apache people.
In any event, we are certainly not going to protect every town name, so this game of “find the obscure geographic use of a non-geographic term” is amusing but irrelevant.
Best regards,
Greg
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 12:49 AM Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Greg
Apache is a town in Caddo County, Oklahoma, USA.
WT5 must keep an open mind to make policy and research this further before shutting it out.
Best Aslam.
On Aug 9, 2018, at 12:11 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
“ApacheNation”, “ApacheTerritory”, “ApacheCountry” or “ApacheReservation” are certainly not geo terms. They do not identify specific places.
There are several "Apache Nations" but none of them are places. "Apache Nation" is sometimes used colloquially to refer to one nation or all of them. But still, not a place. Apache Territory is a 1958 film starring Rory Calhoun. Also not a place. There are a number of Apache reservations, but none is simply called Apache Reservation. For instance, there is the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation in Arizona (but not in Apache County), which is a place. It is the home of the San Carlos Apache Nation, which is not a place. Apache Country is a 1952 film starring Gene Autry. Still not a place, though "Apache Country" is also used colloquially to refer to Southeastern Arizona, particularly for travel and tourism purposes, but it has no formally defined boundaries or status. (FYI, Apache County is not in "Apache Country.")
I write this with the greatest respect for the Apache Nations, and in particular the San Carlos Apache Nation. But that doesn't change the facts.
We need to avoid "geo-creep."
Best regards,
Greeg
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:25 PM Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote: All:
This is the level of conversation between work track members that could be good to make interesting non-AGB name policy. Keep it up!
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 2:23 PM, Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam@gmail.com> wrote:
They would be.
On Aug 8, 2018, at 2:18 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting! Do you think “ApacheNation”, “ApacheTerritory”, “ApacheCountry” or “ApacheReservation” would be geo terms?
Others?
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Thanks Alberto for keeping the discussion on a more rational level.
On Aug 9, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Alberto Soto <alberto@soto.net.ar> wrote:
In many opportunities I agreed with Greg. In this no. If we come to define something about a domain name analyzing whether or not it may be an insult, we are not doing the right thing, that does not correspond to us. We have to look for general definitions that do not involve that type of opinion.
Regards
Alberto
De: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> En nombre de Greg Shatan Enviado el: jueves, 09 de agosto de 2018 02:11 a.m. Para: Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam@gmail.com> CC: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Then my prior point stands — just about anything can be a geo term, even when it is not primarily a geo term. “Apache” is certainly not primarily a geo term, even though this place (pop. 1444) exists.
And the reason this place exists? This is on land that was once part of a reservation, until the Apaches (and Kiowa and Comanche) were kicked out of their reservation in Oklahoma, forced to move west, and the land was opened to non-Native American settlement. This location was picked as a townsite by the offIcial in charge, and the name was then picked by the railroad that came through and helped destroy the reservation. So, this name is really a great insult to the Apache people.
In any event, we are certainly not going to protect every town name, so this game of “find the obscure geographic use of a non-geographic term” is amusing but irrelevant.
Best regards,
Greg
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 12:49 AM Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Greg
Apache is a town in Caddo County, Oklahoma, USA.
WT5 must keep an open mind to make policy and research this further before shutting it out.
Best Aslam.
On Aug 9, 2018, at 12:11 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
“ApacheNation”, “ApacheTerritory”, “ApacheCountry” or “ApacheReservation” are certainly not geo terms. They do not identify specific places.
There are several "Apache Nations" but none of them are places. "Apache Nation" is sometimes used colloquially to refer to one nation or all of them. But still, not a place. Apache Territory is a 1958 film starring Rory Calhoun. Also not a place. There are a number of Apache reservations, but none is simply called Apache Reservation. For instance, there is the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation in Arizona (but not in Apache County), which is a place. It is the home of the San Carlos Apache Nation, which is not a place. Apache Country is a 1952 film starring Gene Autry. Still not a place, though "Apache Country" is also used colloquially to refer to Southeastern Arizona, particularly for travel and tourism purposes, but it has no formally defined boundaries or status. (FYI, Apache County is not in "Apache Country.")
I write this with the greatest respect for the Apache Nations, and in particular the San Carlos Apache Nation. But that doesn't change the facts.
We need to avoid "geo-creep."
Best regards,
Greeg
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:25 PM Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote: All:
This is the level of conversation between work track members that could be good to make interesting non-AGB name policy. Keep it up!
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 2:23 PM, Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam@gmail.com> wrote:
They would be.
On Aug 8, 2018, at 2:18 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting! Do you think “ApacheNation”, “ApacheTerritory”, “ApacheCountry” or “ApacheReservation” would be geo terms?
Others?
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://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
Thanks Alberto, I fully support your comment. --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-09 06:50, Alberto Soto escribió:
In many opportunities I agreed with Greg. In this no. If we come to define something about a domain name analyzing whether or not it may be an insult, we are not doing the right thing, that does not correspond to us.
We have to look for general definitions that do not involve that type of opinion.
Regards
Alberto
DE: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> EN NOMBRE DE Greg Shatan ENVIADO EL: jueves, 09 de agosto de 2018 02:11 a.m. PARA: Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam@gmail.com> CC: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> ASUNTO: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Then my prior point stands -- just about anything can be a geo term, even when it is not primarily a geo term. "Apache" is certainly not primarily a geo term, even though this place (pop. 1444) exists.
And the reason this place exists? This is on land that was once part of a reservation, until the Apaches (and Kiowa and Comanche) were kicked out of their reservation in Oklahoma, forced to move west, and the land was opened to non-Native American settlement. This location was picked as a townsite by the offIcial in charge, and the name was then picked by the railroad that came through and helped destroy the reservation. So, this name is really a great insult to the Apache people.
In any event, we are certainly not going to protect every town name, so this game of "find the obscure geographic use of a
non-geographic term" is amusing but irrelevant.
Best regards,
Greg
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 12:49 AM Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg
APACHE is a town in Caddo County [1], Oklahoma [2], USA [3].
WT5 must keep an open mind to make policy and research this further before shutting it out.
Best
Aslam.
On Aug 9, 2018, at 12:11 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
"ApacheNation", "ApacheTerritory", "ApacheCountry" or "ApacheReservation" are certainly not geo terms. They do not identify specific places.
There are several "Apache Nations" but none of them are places. "Apache Nation" is sometimes used colloquially to refer to one nation or all of them. But still, not a place.
Apache Territory is a 1958 film starring Rory Calhoun. Also not a place.
There are a number of Apache reservations, but none is simply called Apache Reservation. For instance, there is the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation in Arizona (but not in Apache County), which is a place. It is the home of the San Carlos Apache Nation, which is not a place.
Apache Country is a 1952 film starring Gene Autry. Still not a place, though "Apache Country" is also used colloquially to refer to Southeastern Arizona, particularly for travel and tourism purposes, but it has no formally defined boundaries or status. (FYI, Apache County is not in "Apache Country.")
I write this with the greatest respect for the Apache Nations, and in particular the San Carlos Apache Nation. But that doesn't change the facts.
We need to avoid "geo-creep."
Best regards,
Greeg
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:25 PM Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
This is the level of conversation between work track members that could be good to make interesting non-AGB name policy. Keep it up!
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511
twitter: @javrua
skype: javier.rua1
https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 2:23 PM, Aslam Mohamed <gmohamedaslam@gmail.com> wrote:
They would be.
On Aug 8, 2018, at 2:18 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting! Do you think "ApacheNation", "ApacheTerritory", "ApacheCountry" or "ApacheReservation" would be geo terms?
Others?
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511
twitter: @javrua
skype: javier.rua1
https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
+1-787-396-6511
twitter: @javrua
skype: javier.rua1
https://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 [4] 10823 Berlin [4] Deutschland - Germany [4] Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting www.dotzon.consulting [5]
DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin [6]
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] [7].
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 [8]
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [8]
------------------------- 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 [9] _______________________________________________ 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 Links: ------ [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caddo_County,_Oklahoma [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States [4] https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutschland+-+Germany&entry=gmail&source=g [5] http://www.dotzon.consulting [6] https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28,+10823+Berlin&entry=gmail&source=g [7] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472632128&sdata=me4M2xocdDENZhUf8U%2FfsplZO3q09h%2FivOZ%2FOORwgPE%3D&reserved=0 [8] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0 [9] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
As long as they can deliver a kmz file that defines a geography where they have some freedoms and/or rights respected by the larger jurisdiction, then yes. I see a strong analogy to CITIES here. And Cities worked in 2012 expansion --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-08 12:18, Javier Rua escribió:
Interesting! Do you think "ApacheNation", "ApacheTerritory", "ApacheCountry" or "ApacheReservation" would be geo terms?
Others?
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://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 [1] 10823 Berlin [1] Deutschland - Germany [1] Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting www.dotzon.consulting [2]
DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin [3]
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] [4].
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 [5]
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [5]
------------------------- 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 [6] _______________________________________________ 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 Links: ------ [1] https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutschland+-+Germany&entry=gmail&source=g [2] http://www.dotzon.consulting [3] https://maps.google.com/?q=Akazienstrasse+28,+10823+Berlin&entry=gmail&source=g [4] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472632128&sdata=me4M2xocdDENZhUf8U%2FfsplZO3q09h%2FivOZ%2FOORwgPE%3D&reserved=0 [5] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0 [6] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Interesting! Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 8:42 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> wrote:
As long as they can deliver a kmz file that defines a geography where they have some freedoms and/or rights respected by the larger jurisdiction, then yes. I see a strong analogy to CITIES here. And Cities worked in 2012 expansion
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 12:18, Javier Rua escribió:
Interesting! Do you think "ApacheNation", "ApacheTerritory", "ApacheCountry" or "ApacheReservation" would be geo terms?
Others?
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 8, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://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
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
I think ICANN would be dealing with a whole lot of .amazon type disputes. I thought our role was to try to avoid that. Mariat On 8/8/2018 2:23 PM, Javier Rua 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Date: 8/7/18 20:02 (GMT+02:00) To: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>*On Behalf Of*lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>Wilkinson *Sent:*Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM *To:*Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Cc:*gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto: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 <mailto: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-gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....>. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please emailgnso-secs@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
Dear Marita, please think about it as a half-full glass: if .cities worked in the 2012 expansion, why not think big and try to make an analogy to other well defined geographic areas (excluding watersheds o course) :) --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-08 15:08, Marita Moll escribió:
I think ICANN would be dealing with a whole lot of .amazon type disputes. I thought our role was to try to avoid that.
Mariat On 8/8/2018 2:23 PM, Javier Rua 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] [1].
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 [2]
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [2]
------------------------- 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 Links: ------ [1] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472632128&sdata=me4M2xocdDENZhUf8U%2FfsplZO3q09h%2FivOZ%2FOORwgPE%3D&reserved=0 [2] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0
participants (12)
-
Alberto Soto -
Alexander Schubert -
Annebeth Lange -
Arasteh -
Aslam Mohamed -
Carlos Raul Gutierrez -
Greg Shatan -
Javier Rua -
Jon Nevett -
Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH -
Marita Moll -
McGrady, Paul D.