Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT. While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Thanks, Robin
Hi Robin, Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call. Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT. While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Thanks, Robin _______________________________________________ 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
Robin Gross via <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> icann.org 6:48 PM (1 hour ago) within the lines Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w. I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. * Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.* Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely *in line with draft *The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option *.There are* *several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD* * .* *Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT* Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. *Reply* *While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative* *Regards* Kavouss On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
*Martin Sutton* Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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 Kavouss I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857<tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> [cid:image001.png@01D2730D.4FCB7A70] RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com<http://rnaip.com/> On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Robin Gross via<https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> icann.org<http://icann.org/> 6:48 PM (1 hour ago) [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] within the lines Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w. [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD . Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative Regards Kavouss On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> wrote: Hi Robin, Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call. Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT. While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Thanks, Robin _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
Robin; Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree. It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others. We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process. Greg On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
*Kind Regards*
*Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate* *US Business Development* *Mob +1 646 243 9857 <+1%20646%20243%209857>*
* RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/> *
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Robin Gross via <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> icann.org 6:48 PM (1 hour ago) within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w. I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
*Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.*
Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely *in line with draft *The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option *.There are* * several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD* * .* *Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT* Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. *Reply* *While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative* *Regards* Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
*Martin Sutton* Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear Greg Thank you very much for yr message I did not speak for any group but reflected the serious discussion took place in GAC and properly reflected in several GAC advise. Have good day Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 07:28, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote: Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
Kind Regards
Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Robin Gross via icann.org
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w.
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD . Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote: Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
+1 In case of referring opinions of any AC/SOs, it would be better to quote those statements as reference instead of defining other opinions as "personal". Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg Shatan To: Aslam Mohamed Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Robin; Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree. It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others. We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process. Greg On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote: Dear Kavouss I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857 RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Robin Gross via icann.org 6:48 PM (1 hour ago) within the lines Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w. I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD . Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative Regards Kavouss On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote: Hi Robin, Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call. Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote: I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT. While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Thanks, Robin _______________________________________________ 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Robin; Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree. It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others. We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process. Greg On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com> > wrote: Dear Kavouss I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857 <tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/> On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Robin Gross <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> via icann.org <http://icann.org/> 6:48 PM (1 hour ago) <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> within the lines Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w. <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD . Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative Regards Kavouss On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > wrote: Hi Robin, Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call. Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> > wrote: I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT. While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Thanks, Robin _______________________________________________ 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 _____ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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 All There is no primacy issue here. It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote: Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
Kind Regards
Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Robin Gross via icann.org
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
within the lines Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w.
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD . Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote: Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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
Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”). I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening. Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration. There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law. Greg On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All There is no primacy issue here. It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended Tks Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM *To:* Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
*Kind Regards*
*Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate*
*US Business Development*
*Mob +1 646 243 9857 <+1%20646%20243%209857>*
*RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys *
*rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/> *
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Robin Gross via <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> icann.org
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
*Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.*
Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely *in line with draft *The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option *.There are* *several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD*
* .*
*Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT*
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. *Reply*
*While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative*
*Regards*
Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
*Martin Sutton*
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
_______________________________________________ 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
Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation “sovereign rights” to place names … I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM To: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”). I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening. Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration. There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law. Greg On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear All There is no primacy issue here. It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote: Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com> > Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Robin; Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree. It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others. We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process. Greg On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com> > wrote: Dear Kavouss I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857 <tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/> On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Robin Gross <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> via icann.org <http://icann.org/> 6:48 PM (1 hour ago) <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> within the lines Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w. <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD . Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative Regards Kavouss On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > wrote: Hi Robin, Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call. Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> > wrote: I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT. While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Thanks, Robin _______________________________________________ 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 _____ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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
Paul I recognise you as one of the most famous well known lawyers in the USA You may wish to consider that for obvious thing there is no to have « so called « international law Customer law which is the most oldest and most referenced law could also be used as a proper reference You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis Which is one of the well known capital of one of the most ancient civilisation Acamanech in greater Iran No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of Iran Whose who have recognised history understand that Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:28, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation “sovereign rights” to place names … I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM To: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”).
I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening.
Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration.
There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law.
Greg
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear All There is no primacy issue here. It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended Tks Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote: Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
Kind Regards
Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Robin Gross via icann.org
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
within the lines Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w.
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD . Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote: Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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
Sorry, Kavoush, but I am not a famous lawyer at all As for your claim to the “rights” to old names – unless you can cite some law that is nothing more than a claim. It is not at all “obvious” to me that you have any claim at all to those names … and the paper that Aslam cited makes clear why this is so. If the basis for this discussion is going to be Iranian claims that it is “obvious” that they are right this is going to be a very short and fruitless conversation. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:20 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Paul I recognise you as one of the most famous well known lawyers in the USA You may wish to consider that for obvious thing there is no to have « so called « international law Customer law which is the most oldest and most referenced law could also be used as a proper reference You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis Which is one of the well known capital of one of the most ancient civilisation Acamanech in greater Iran No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of Iran Whose who have recognised history understand that Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:28, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote: Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation “sovereign rights” to place names … I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM To: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > Cc: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com> >; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”). I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening. Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration. There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law. Greg On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear All There is no primacy issue here. It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote: Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com> > Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Robin; Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree. It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others. We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process. Greg On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com> > wrote: Dear Kavouss I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857 <tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/> On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Robin Gross <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> via icann.org <http://icann.org/> 6:48 PM (1 hour ago) <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> within the lines Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w. <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD . Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative Regards Kavouss On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > wrote: Hi Robin, Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call. Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> > wrote: I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT. While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Thanks, Robin _______________________________________________ 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 _____ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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 Aslam Thank for the paper However, it is simple the views of Dr. Heather Frorest and not more than that. There are thousand of this type of articles which all reflect the views of their authors and nothing more Kavouss On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Sorry, Kavoush, but I am not a famous lawyer at all
As for your claim to the “rights” to old names – unless you can cite some law that is nothing more than a claim. It is not at all “obvious” to me that you have any claim at all to those names … and the paper that Aslam cited makes clear why this is so.
If the basis for this discussion is going to be Iranian claims that it is “obvious” that they are right this is going to be a very short and fruitless conversation.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
*From:* Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:20 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> *Cc:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Aslam Mohamed < aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Paul
I recognise you as one of the most famous well known lawyers in the USA
You may wish to consider that for obvious thing there is no to have « so called « international law
Customer law which is the most oldest and most referenced law could also be used as a proper reference
You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis Which is one of the well known capital of one of the most ancient civilisation Acamanech in greater Iran
No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of Iran
Whose who have recognised history understand that
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:28, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@ redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation “sovereign rights” to place names … I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM *To:* Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc:* Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@ redbranchconsulting.com> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”).
I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening.
Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration.
There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law.
Greg
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All
There is no primacy issue here.
It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected
There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them
If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage
You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights
We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended
Tks
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@ redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM *To:* Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
*Kind Regards*
*Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate*
*US Business Development*
*Mob +1 646 243 9857 <+1%20646%20243%209857>*
*RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys *
*rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/> *
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Robin Gross via <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> icann.org
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
*Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.*
Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely *in line with draft *The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option *.There are* *several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD*
* .*
*Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT*
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. *Reply*
*While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative*
*Regards*
Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
*Martin Sutton*
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
_______________________________________________ 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 Kavouss I respectfully agree with you that it is ‘only’ Heather’s views. I also respect Iran very much. But unfortunately sovereignty cannot extend beyond one's territory. Since ICANN and gTLD are trans national issues sovereignty might not be able to solve the problem - there will be 200 or more sovereigns having their own assertions - a sure recipe for chaos. And this is without the melee of rights in personam and rem. That’s why the ICANN Bylaws become important and all stakeholders and managements have to adopt that as the final word, unequivocally. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857<tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> [cid:image001.png@01D2730D.4FCB7A70] RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com<http://rnaip.com/> On Nov 30, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Aslam Thank for the paper However, it is simple the views of Dr. Heather Frorest and not more than that. There are thousand of this type of articles which all reflect the views of their authors and nothing more Kavouss On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Sorry, Kavoush, but I am not a famous lawyer at all As for your claim to the “rights” to old names – unless you can cite some law that is nothing more than a claim. It is not at all “obvious” to me that you have any claim at all to those names … and the paper that Aslam cited makes clear why this is so. If the basis for this discussion is going to be Iranian claims that it is “obvious” that they are right this is going to be a very short and fruitless conversation. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739> From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:20 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Paul I recognise you as one of the most famous well known lawyers in the USA You may wish to consider that for obvious thing there is no to have « so called « international law Customer law which is the most oldest and most referenced law could also be used as a proper reference You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis Which is one of the well known capital of one of the most ancient civilisation Acamanech in greater Iran No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of Iran Whose who have recognised history understand that Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:28, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation “sovereign rights” to place names … I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM To: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”). I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening. Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration. There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law. Greg On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All There is no primacy issue here. It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Robin; Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree. It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others. We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process. Greg On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> wrote: Dear Kavouss I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857<tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> <image001.png> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com<http://rnaip.com/> On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Robin Gross via<https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> icann.org<http://icann.org/> 6:48 PM (1 hour ago) [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] within the lines Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w. [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD . Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative Regards Kavouss On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> wrote: Hi Robin, Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call. Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT. While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Thanks, Robin _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
Is there a paper with reasoned analysis that differs from the "views" so well laid-out by Prof. Forrest? Is there any reason that the views in this paper are not valid? Clearly, the fact that this paper (or any paper or position) represents the views of its author is merely a statement of fact, and cannot refute the logic or validity of any position. Since that goes without saying, there's no point in saying it, except as a rhetorical attempt to dismiss differing views without dealing with their merits. Of course, the multistakeholder model depends on discourse and persuasion dealing with the merits of differing viewpoints. As such, the email above contributes nothing to the conversation (except to the extent it can be construed as an admission that there are no reasoned and logical ways to oppose the merits of Prof. Forrest's paper). And, if (as was stated) there are thousands of papers that are consistent with Professor Forrest's paper, and none that are consistent with your dismissal of that paper, then that is very telling indeed. Thus, until we see papers, etc. refuting this analysis, we must accept it. As for claims that "You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis Which is one of the well known capital of one of the most ancient civilisation Acamanech in greater Iran No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of Iran"? This is clearly an argument, not a statement of fact. And it is clearly not, in fact, the case, see, e.g.: http://www.persepolisnewyork.com/ https://www.facebook.com/savannahpersepolis/ http://www.persepolis-restaurant.de/ http://foratasteofpersia.co.uk/ https://www.perspolispizzasubs.com/ https://www.facebook.com/persepolis.cuisine/ https://www.yelp.com/biz/persepolis-leoben http://www.restaurantpersepolis.de/ https://www.zomato.com/montreal/brochetterie-persepolis-montr%C3%A9al https://www.facebook.com/sherbrooke.ca/ http://www.persepolisgrill.com/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/160890/persepolis-by-marjane-satrap... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis_(film) http://www.cafepress.com/+persepolis+gifts http://www.persepolisorientalrug.com/ http://www.persepolis-shop.com/en/index.html https://www.havertys.com/furniture/persepolis-rug https://www.booking.com/hotel/fr/le-persepolis.html https://www.just-eat.co.uk/restaurants-persepolis-g42/menu https://www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2014/09/29/whats-new-restaurants-persepoli... https://www.booking.com/hotel/it/persepolis-rome.html http://www.deltatravel.ro/bucharest-hotels/persepolis.php And, for your listening pleasure, "Persepolis" by Iannis Xenakis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-GEbbgT5Io Best regards, Greg On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I respectfully agree with you that it is ‘only’ Heather’s views. I also respect Iran very much. But unfortunately sovereignty cannot extend beyond one's territory. Since ICANN and gTLD are trans national issues sovereignty might not be able to solve the problem - there will be 200 or more sovereigns having their own assertions - a sure recipe for chaos. And this is without the melee of rights in personam and rem.
That’s why the ICANN Bylaws become important and all stakeholders and managements have to adopt that as the final word, unequivocally.
*Kind Regards*
*Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate* *US Business Development* *Mob +1 646 243 9857 <+1%20646%20243%209857>*
* RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/> *
On Nov 30, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Aslam Thank for the paper However, it is simple the views of Dr. Heather Frorest and not more than that. There are thousand of this type of articles which all reflect the views of their authors and nothing more Kavouss
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@ redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Sorry, Kavoush, but I am not a famous lawyer at all
As for your claim to the “rights” to old names – unless you can cite some law that is nothing more than a claim. It is not at all “obvious” to me that you have any claim at all to those names … and the paper that Aslam cited makes clear why this is so.
If the basis for this discussion is going to be Iranian claims that it is “obvious” that they are right this is going to be a very short and fruitless conversation.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
*From:* Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:20 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> *Cc:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Aslam Mohamed < aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
*Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Paul
I recognise you as one of the most famous well known lawyers in the USA
You may wish to consider that for obvious thing there is no to have « so called « international law
Customer law which is the most oldest and most referenced law could also be used as a proper reference
You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis Which is one of the well known capital of one of the most ancient civilisation Acamanech in greater Iran
No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of Iran
Whose who have recognised history understand that
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:28, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchcons ulting.com> wrote:
Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation “sovereign rights” to place names … I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM *To:* Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc:* Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>; Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”).
I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening.
Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration.
There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law.
Greg
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All
There is no primacy issue here.
It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected
There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them
If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage
You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights
We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended
Tks
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchcons ulting.com> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM *To:* Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
*Kind Regards*
*Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate*
*US Business Development*
*Mob +1 646 243 9857 <+1%20646%20243%209857>*
* <image001.png>*
* RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys *
*rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/> *
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Robin Gross via <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> icann.org
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
*Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.*
Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely *in line with draft *The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option *.There are* * several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD*
* .*
*Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT*
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. *Reply*
*While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative*
*Regards*
Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
*Martin Sutton*
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
_______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
Very well articulated Greg. That’s exactly the point I was trying to make. That Heather’s thesis is so lucid that dismissing it on emotion does not fly. And it needs to be countered by reason which in my research there is none. Kind Regards Aslam Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Ph: +1 646 243 9857<tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> [https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPO/MessageImages/e8c178193df64...] RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys. rnaip.com<http://rnaip.com/> On 30 Nov 2017, at 21:41, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Is there a paper with reasoned analysis that differs from the "views" so well laid-out by Prof. Forrest? Is there any reason that the views in this paper are not valid? Clearly, the fact that this paper (or any paper or position) represents the views of its author is merely a statement of fact, and cannot refute the logic or validity of any position. Since that goes without saying, there's no point in saying it, except as a rhetorical attempt to dismiss differing views without dealing with their merits. Of course, the multistakeholder model depends on discourse and persuasion dealing with the merits of differing viewpoints. As such, the email above contributes nothing to the conversation (except to the extent it can be construed as an admission that there are no reasoned and logical ways to oppose the merits of Prof. Forrest's paper). And, if (as was stated) there are thousands of papers that are consistent with Professor Forrest's paper, and none that are consistent with your dismissal of that paper, then that is very telling indeed. Thus, until we see papers, etc. refuting this analysis, we must accept it. As for claims that "You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis Which is one of the well known capital of one of the most ancient civilisation Acamanech in greater Iran No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of Iran"? This is clearly an argument, not a statement of fact. And it is clearly not, in fact, the case, see, e.g.: http://www.persepolisnewyork.com/ https://www.facebook.com/savannahpersepolis/ http://www.persepolis-restaurant.de/ http://foratasteofpersia.co.uk/ https://www.perspolispizzasubs.com/ https://www.facebook.com/persepolis.cuisine/ https://www.yelp.com/biz/persepolis-leoben http://www.restaurantpersepolis.de/ https://www.zomato.com/montreal/brochetterie-persepolis-montr%C3%A9al https://www.facebook.com/sherbrooke.ca/ http://www.persepolisgrill.com/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/160890/persepolis-by-marjane-satrap... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis_(film) http://www.cafepress.com/+persepolis+gifts http://www.persepolisorientalrug.com/ http://www.persepolis-shop.com/en/index.html https://www.havertys.com/furniture/persepolis-rug https://www.booking.com/hotel/fr/le-persepolis.html https://www.just-eat.co.uk/restaurants-persepolis-g42/menu https://www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2014/09/29/whats-new-restaurants-persepoli... https://www.booking.com/hotel/it/persepolis-rome.html http://www.deltatravel.ro/bucharest-hotels/persepolis.php And, for your listening pleasure, "Persepolis" by Iannis Xenakis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-GEbbgT5Io Best regards, Greg On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> wrote: Dear Kavouss I respectfully agree with you that it is ‘only’ Heather’s views. I also respect Iran very much. But unfortunately sovereignty cannot extend beyond one's territory. Since ICANN and gTLD are trans national issues sovereignty might not be able to solve the problem - there will be 200 or more sovereigns having their own assertions - a sure recipe for chaos. And this is without the melee of rights in personam and rem. That’s why the ICANN Bylaws become important and all stakeholders and managements have to adopt that as the final word, unequivocally. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857<tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> [cid:image001.png@01D2730D.4FCB7A70] RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com<http://rnaip.com/> On Nov 30, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Aslam Thank for the paper However, it is simple the views of Dr. Heather Frorest and not more than that. There are thousand of this type of articles which all reflect the views of their authors and nothing more Kavouss On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Sorry, Kavoush, but I am not a famous lawyer at all As for your claim to the “rights” to old names – unless you can cite some law that is nothing more than a claim. It is not at all “obvious” to me that you have any claim at all to those names … and the paper that Aslam cited makes clear why this is so. If the basis for this discussion is going to be Iranian claims that it is “obvious” that they are right this is going to be a very short and fruitless conversation. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739> From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:20 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Paul I recognise you as one of the most famous well known lawyers in the USA You may wish to consider that for obvious thing there is no to have « so called « international law Customer law which is the most oldest and most referenced law could also be used as a proper reference You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis Which is one of the well known capital of one of the most ancient civilisation Acamanech in greater Iran No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of Iran Whose who have recognised history understand that Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:28, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation “sovereign rights” to place names … I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM To: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”). I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening. Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration. There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law. Greg On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All There is no primacy issue here. It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Robin; Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree. It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others. We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process. Greg On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> wrote: Dear Kavouss I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857<tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> <image001.png> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com<http://rnaip.com/> On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Robin Gross via<https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> icann.org<http://icann.org/> 6:48 PM (1 hour ago) [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] within the lines Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w. [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD . Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative Regards Kavouss On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> wrote: Hi Robin, Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call. Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT. While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Thanks, Robin _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. ________________________________ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
Dear Sir Thanks But there a course of action to be taken seeking the views of the country when its heritage , history ,culture, social values, belief ,faits , names of its mountains, Tibet’s, legend dates, names of its cuties, names of dynasties and and are to be used. Thus is a courtesy disciple which should be followed. Multistakeholder approach does not prevent to do so In almost all caves the agreement would be granted . In relatively few caves, agreement would also be granted with some conditions to respond to those values. What bothers me is there are a handful number of people ( you joined them for the first time) having a purely conservative behavior collectively and collegiality criticized, attacked and sometimes aggressive to the extent that it could implied that it was a sort of repression ( dot talk ) Approach. That is not admitted. We should know that in this subject the notion of « majority “ /“ minority “ does not apply because the governments that are the stakeholder are always in minority status vis a vis others I hope you have properly interpreted the fact mentioned. Regards Have a nice time Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Dec 2017, at 02:26, Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I respectfully agree with you that it is ‘only’ Heather’s views. I also respect Iran very much. But unfortunately sovereignty cannot extend beyond one's territory. Since ICANN and gTLD are trans national issues sovereignty might not be able to solve the problem - there will be 200 or more sovereigns having their own assertions - a sure recipe for chaos. And this is without the melee of rights in personam and rem.
That’s why the ICANN Bylaws become important and all stakeholders and managements have to adopt that as the final word, unequivocally.
Kind Regards
Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com
On Nov 30, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Aslam Thank for the paper However, it is simple the views of Dr. Heather Frorest and not more than that. There are thousand of this type of articles which all reflect the views of their authors and nothing more Kavouss
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote: Sorry, Kavoush, but I am not a famous lawyer at all
As for your claim to the “rights” to old names – unless you can cite some law that is nothing more than a claim. It is not at all “obvious” to me that you have any claim at all to those names … and the paper that Aslam cited makes clear why this is so.
If the basis for this discussion is going to be Iranian claims that it is “obvious” that they are right this is going to be a very short and fruitless conversation.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:20 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Paul
I recognise you as one of the most famous well known lawyers in the USA
You may wish to consider that for obvious thing there is no to have « so called « international law
Customer law which is the most oldest and most referenced law could also be used as a proper reference
You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis Which is one of the well known capital of one of the most ancient civilisation Acamanech in greater Iran
No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of Iran
Whose who have recognised history understand that
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:28, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation “sovereign rights” to place names … I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM To: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”).
I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening.
Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration.
There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law.
Greg
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All
There is no primacy issue here.
It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected
There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them
If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage
You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights
We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended
Tks
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
Kind Regards
Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate
US Business Development
Mob +1 646 243 9857
<image001.png>
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys
rnaip.com
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Robin Gross via icann.org
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD
.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply
While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative
Regards
Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
_______________________________________________ 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
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
Hi everyone, Observing the email exchanges it seems we are diving into some of the debates that will be resurfaced during the WT5 process. It would be helpful if we could focus back on the primary action of formulating the ToR scope before we begin to get into the deeper discussions, which we can focus on later. I applaud the enthusiasm of participants, please don’t let that wain. Let’s make sure that enthusiasm and passion is channeled in a positive and respectful way as we move forward with our work, encouraging broad participation and an appreciation of the different views brought to the group. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Co-Leader, WT5 On 1 Dec 2017, at 08:03, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Sir Thanks But there a course of action to be taken seeking the views of the country when its heritage , history ,culture, social values, belief ,faits , names of its mountains, Tibet’s, legend dates, names of its cuties, names of dynasties and and are to be used. Thus is a courtesy disciple which should be followed. Multistakeholder approach does not prevent to do so In almost all caves the agreement would be granted . In relatively few caves, agreement would also be granted with some conditions to respond to those values. What bothers me is there are a handful number of people ( you joined them for the first time) having a purely conservative behavior collectively and collegiality criticized, attacked and sometimes aggressive to the extent that it could implied that it was a sort of repression ( dot talk ) Approach. That is not admitted. We should know that in this subject the notion of « majority “ /“ minority “ does not apply because the governments that are the stakeholder are always in minority status vis a vis others I hope you have properly interpreted the fact mentioned. Regards Have a nice time Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 1 Dec 2017, at 02:26, Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> wrote: Dear Kavouss I respectfully agree with you that it is ‘only’ Heather’s views. I also respect Iran very much. But unfortunately sovereignty cannot extend beyond one's territory. Since ICANN and gTLD are trans national issues sovereignty might not be able to solve the problem - there will be 200 or more sovereigns having their own assertions - a sure recipe for chaos. And this is without the melee of rights in personam and rem. That’s why the ICANN Bylaws become important and all stakeholders and managements have to adopt that as the final word, unequivocally. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857<tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> <image001.png> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com<http://rnaip.com/> On Nov 30, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Aslam Thank for the paper However, it is simple the views of Dr. Heather Frorest and not more than that. There are thousand of this type of articles which all reflect the views of their authors and nothing more Kavouss On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Sorry, Kavoush, but I am not a famous lawyer at all As for your claim to the “rights” to old names – unless you can cite some law that is nothing more than a claim. It is not at all “obvious” to me that you have any claim at all to those names … and the paper that Aslam cited makes clear why this is so. If the basis for this discussion is going to be Iranian claims that it is “obvious” that they are right this is going to be a very short and fruitless conversation. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739> From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:20 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Paul I recognise you as one of the most famous well known lawyers in the USA You may wish to consider that for obvious thing there is no to have « so called « international law Customer law which is the most oldest and most referenced law could also be used as a proper reference You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis Which is one of the well known capital of one of the most ancient civilisation Acamanech in greater Iran No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of Iran Whose who have recognised history understand that Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:28, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation “sovereign rights” to place names … I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM To: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”). I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening. Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration. There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law. Greg On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All There is no primacy issue here. It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Robin; Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree. It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others. We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process. Greg On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> wrote: Dear Kavouss I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857<tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> <image001.png> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com<http://rnaip.com/> On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Robin Gross via<https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> icann.org<http://icann.org/> 6:48 PM (1 hour ago) [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] within the lines Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w. [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD . Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative Regards Kavouss On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> wrote: Hi Robin, Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call. Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT. While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Thanks, Robin _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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
+1 Martin Best regards Dave On 01/12/2017 14:09, Martin Sutton wrote:
Hi everyone,
Observing the email exchanges it seems we are diving into some of the debates that will be resurfaced during the WT5 process. It would be helpful if we could focus back on the primary action of formulating the ToR scope before we begin to get into the deeper discussions, which we can focus on later.
I applaud the enthusiasm of participants, please don’t let that wain. Let’s make sure that enthusiasm and passion is channeled in a positive and respectful way as we move forward with our work, encouraging broad participation and an appreciation of the different views brought to the group.
Kind regards,
Martin
*Martin Sutton* Co-Leader, WT5
On 1 Dec 2017, at 08:03, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Sir Thanks But there a course of action to be taken seeking the views of the country when its heritage , history ,culture, social values, belief ,faits , names of its mountains, Tibet’s, legend dates, names of its cuties, names of dynasties and and are to be used. Thus is a courtesy disciple which should be followed. Multistakeholder approach does not prevent to do so In almost all caves the agreement would be granted . In relatively few caves, agreement would also be granted with some conditions to respond to those values. What bothers me is there are a handful number of people ( you joined them for the first time) having a purely conservative behavior collectively and collegiality criticized, attacked and sometimes aggressive to the extent that it could implied that it was a sort of repression ( dot talk ) Approach. That is not admitted. We should know that in this subject the notion of « majority “ /“ minority “ does not apply because the governments that are the stakeholder are always in minority status vis a vis others I hope you have properly interpreted the fact mentioned. Regards Have a nice time Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Dec 2017, at 02:26, Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I respectfully agree with you that it is ‘only’ Heather’s views. I also respect Iran very much. But unfortunately sovereignty cannot extend beyond one's territory. Since ICANN and gTLD are trans national issues sovereignty might not be able to solve the problem - there will be 200 or more sovereigns having their own assertions - a sure recipe for chaos. And this is without the melee of rights in personam and rem.
That’s why the ICANN Bylaws become important and all stakeholders and managements have to adopt that as the final word, unequivocally.
*Kind Regards* * * *Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate* *US Business Development* *Mob +1 646 243 9857 <tel:+1%20646%20243%209857>*
* <image001.png> * RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys * *rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/>* *
On Nov 30, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Aslam Thank for the paper However, it is simple the views of Dr. Heather Frorest and not more than that. There are thousand of this type of articles which all reflect the views of their authors and nothing more Kavouss
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
Sorry, Kavoush, but I am not a famous lawyer at all
As for your claim to the “rights” to old names – unless you can cite some law that is nothing more than a claim. It is not at all “obvious” to me that you have any claim at all to those names … and the paper that Aslam cited makes clear why this is so.
If the basis for this discussion is going to be Iranian claims that it is “obvious” that they are right this is going to be a very short and fruitless conversation.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%28202%29%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <tel:%28202%29%20738-1739>
*From:*Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:20 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> *Cc:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>
*Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Paul
I recognise you as one of the most famous well known lawyers in the USA
You may wish to consider that for obvious thing there is no to have « so called « international law
Customer law which is the most oldest and most referenced law could also be used as a proper reference
You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis Which is one of the well known capital of one of the most ancient civilisation Acamanech in greater Iran
No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of Iran
Whose who have recognised history understand that
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:28, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation “sovereign rights” to place names … I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%28202%29%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <tel:%28202%29%20738-1739>
*From:*Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM *To:* Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> *Cc:* Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”).
I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening.
Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration.
There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law.
Greg
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear All
There is no primacy issue here.
It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected
There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them
If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage
You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights
We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended
Tks
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%28202%29%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <tel:%28202%29%20738-1739>
*From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM *To:* Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
*Kind Regards*
*Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate*
*US Business Development*
*Mob +1 646 243 9857 <tel:+1%20646%20243%209857>*
* <image001.png>*
* RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys *
*rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/> *
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Robin Gross via <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> icann.org <http://icann.org/>
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
/Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that./
Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER//is entirely /in line with draft /The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC//members opposed to the second option /.There are/ /several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD/
/ ./
/Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT/
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. /Reply/
/While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative/
/Regards/
Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
*Martin Sutton*
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote:
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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://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 <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
_______________________________________________ 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://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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
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
+ 1, Martin. Kind regards Annebeth Lange Co-leader, WT5 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Date: Friday, 1 December 2017 at 11:10 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Hi everyone, Observing the email exchanges it seems we are diving into some of the debates that will be resurfaced during the WT5 process. It would be helpful if we could focus back on the primary action of formulating the ToR scope before we begin to get into the deeper discussions, which we can focus on later. I applaud the enthusiasm of participants, please don’t let that wain. Let’s make sure that enthusiasm and passion is channeled in a positive and respectful way as we move forward with our work, encouraging broad participation and an appreciation of the different views brought to the group. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Co-Leader, WT5 On 1 Dec 2017, at 08:03, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Sir Thanks But there a course of action to be taken seeking the views of the country when its heritage , history ,culture, social values, belief ,faits , names of its mountains, Tibet’s, legend dates, names of its cuties, names of dynasties and and are to be used. Thus is a courtesy disciple which should be followed. Multistakeholder approach does not prevent to do so In almost all caves the agreement would be granted . In relatively few caves, agreement would also be granted with some conditions to respond to those values. What bothers me is there are a handful number of people ( you joined them for the first time) having a purely conservative behavior collectively and collegiality criticized, attacked and sometimes aggressive to the extent that it could implied that it was a sort of repression ( dot talk ) Approach. That is not admitted. We should know that in this subject the notion of « majority “ /“ minority “ does not apply because the governments that are the stakeholder are always in minority status vis a vis others I hope you have properly interpreted the fact mentioned. Regards Have a nice time Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 1 Dec 2017, at 02:26, Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> wrote: Dear Kavouss I respectfully agree with you that it is ‘only’ Heather’s views. I also respect Iran very much. But unfortunately sovereignty cannot extend beyond one's territory. Since ICANN and gTLD are trans national issues sovereignty might not be able to solve the problem - there will be 200 or more sovereigns having their own assertions - a sure recipe for chaos. And this is without the melee of rights in personam and rem. That’s why the ICANN Bylaws become important and all stakeholders and managements have to adopt that as the final word, unequivocally. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857<tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> <image001.png> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com<http://rnaip.com/> On Nov 30, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Aslam Thank for the paper However, it is simple the views of Dr. Heather Frorest and not more than that. There are thousand of this type of articles which all reflect the views of their authors and nothing more Kavouss On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Sorry, Kavoush, but I am not a famous lawyer at all As for your claim to the “rights” to old names – unless you can cite some law that is nothing more than a claim. It is not at all “obvious” to me that you have any claim at all to those names … and the paper that Aslam cited makes clear why this is so. If the basis for this discussion is going to be Iranian claims that it is “obvious” that they are right this is going to be a very short and fruitless conversation. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739> From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:20 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Paul I recognise you as one of the most famous well known lawyers in the USA You may wish to consider that for obvious thing there is no to have « so called « international law Customer law which is the most oldest and most referenced law could also be used as a proper reference You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis Which is one of the well known capital of one of the most ancient civilisation Acamanech in greater Iran No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of Iran Whose who have recognised history understand that Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:28, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation “sovereign rights” to place names … I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM To: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”). I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening. Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration. There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law. Greg On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All There is no primacy issue here. It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Robin; Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree. It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others. We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process. Greg On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> wrote: Dear Kavouss I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857<tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> <image001.png> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com<http://rnaip.com/> On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Robin Gross via<https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> icann.org<http://icann.org/> 6:48 PM (1 hour ago) within the lines Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w. I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD . Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative Regards Kavouss On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> wrote: Hi Robin, Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call. Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT. While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Thanks, Robin _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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 all, I agree with Martin, we need to focus in the ToR and once agreed start our work. We should not try to debate on substance now, the time will come for this in the near future. Lest focus on the ToR text and find a common ground there. Best regards Olga 2017-12-01 7:28 GMT-03:00 Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no>:
+ 1, Martin.
Kind regards
*Annebeth Lange*
Co-leader, WT5
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> *Date: *Friday, 1 December 2017 at 11:10 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
*Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Hi everyone,
Observing the email exchanges it seems we are diving into some of the debates that will be resurfaced during the WT5 process. It would be helpful if we could focus back on the primary action of formulating the ToR scope before we begin to get into the deeper discussions, which we can focus on later.
I applaud the enthusiasm of participants, please don’t let that wain. Let’s make sure that enthusiasm and passion is channeled in a positive and respectful way as we move forward with our work, encouraging broad participation and an appreciation of the different views brought to the group.
Kind regards,
Martin
*Martin Sutton*
Co-Leader, WT5
On 1 Dec 2017, at 08:03, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sir
Thanks
But there a course of action to be taken seeking the views of the country when its heritage , history ,culture, social values, belief ,faits , names of its mountains, Tibet’s, legend dates, names of its cuties, names of dynasties and and are to be used.
Thus is a courtesy disciple which should be followed.
Multistakeholder approach does not prevent to do so
In almost all caves the agreement would be granted . In relatively few caves, agreement would also be granted with some conditions to respond to those values.
What bothers me is there are a handful number of people ( you joined them for the first time) having a purely conservative behavior collectively and collegiality criticized, attacked and sometimes aggressive to the extent that it could implied that it was a sort of repression ( dot talk )
Approach.
That is not admitted.
We should know that in this subject the notion of « majority “ /“ minority “ does not apply because the governments that are the stakeholder are always in minority status vis a vis others
I hope you have properly interpreted the fact mentioned.
Regards
Have a nice time
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Dec 2017, at 02:26, Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I respectfully agree with you that it is ‘only’ Heather’s views. I also respect Iran very much. But unfortunately sovereignty cannot extend beyond one's territory. Since ICANN and gTLD are trans national issues sovereignty might not be able to solve the problem - there will be 200 or more sovereigns having their own assertions - a sure recipe for chaos. And this is without the melee of rights in personam and rem.
That’s why the ICANN Bylaws become important and all stakeholders and managements have to adopt that as the final word, unequivocally.
*Kind Regards*
*Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate*
*US Business Development*
*Mob +1 646 243 9857 <+1%20646%20243%209857>*
* <image001.png> *
* RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys *
*rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/> *
On Nov 30, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Aslam
Thank for the paper
However, it is simple the views of Dr. Heather Frorest and not more than that.
There are thousand of this type of articles which all reflect the views of their authors and nothing more
Kavouss
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@ redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Sorry, Kavoush, but I am not a famous lawyer at all
As for your claim to the “rights” to old names – unless you can cite some law that is nothing more than a claim. It is not at all “obvious” to me that you have any claim at all to those names … and the paper that Aslam cited makes clear why this is so.
If the basis for this discussion is going to be Iranian claims that it is “obvious” that they are right this is going to be a very short and fruitless conversation.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
*From:* Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:20 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> *Cc:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Aslam Mohamed < aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Paul
I recognise you as one of the most famous well known lawyers in the USA
You may wish to consider that for obvious thing there is no to have « so called « international law
Customer law which is the most oldest and most referenced law could also be used as a proper reference
You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis Which is one of the well known capital of one of the most ancient civilisation Acamanech in greater Iran
No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of Iran
Whose who have recognised history understand that
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:28, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@ redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation “sovereign rights” to place names … I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM *To:* Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc:* Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@ redbranchconsulting.com> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”).
I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening.
Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration.
There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law.
Greg
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All
There is no primacy issue here.
It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected
There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them
If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage
You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights
We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended
Tks
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@ redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM *To:* Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
*Kind Regards*
*Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate*
*US Business Development*
*Mob +1 646 243 9857 <+1%20646%20243%209857>*
* <image001.png>*
* RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys *
*rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/> *
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Robin Gross via <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> icann.org
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
*Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.*
Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely *in line with draft *The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option *.There are* *several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD*
* .*
*Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT*
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. *Reply*
*While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative*
*Regards*
Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
*Martin Sutton*
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
_______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
_______________________________________________ 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 Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Dec 2, 2017, at 4:56 PM, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I agree with Martin, we need to focus in the ToR and once agreed start our work.
We should not try to debate on substance now, the time will come for this in the near future.
Lest focus on the ToR text and find a common ground there.
Best regards Olga
2017-12-01 7:28 GMT-03:00 Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no>:
+ 1, Martin.
Kind regards
Annebeth Lange
Co-leader, WT5
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Date: Friday, 1 December 2017 at 11:10 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Hi everyone,
Observing the email exchanges it seems we are diving into some of the debates that will be resurfaced during the WT5 process. It would be helpful if we could focus back on the primary action of formulating the ToR scope before we begin to get into the deeper discussions, which we can focus on later.
I applaud the enthusiasm of participants, please don’t let that wain. Let’s make sure that enthusiasm and passion is channeled in a positive and respectful way as we move forward with our work, encouraging broad participation and an appreciation of the different views brought to the group.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Co-Leader, WT5
On 1 Dec 2017, at 08:03, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sir
Thanks
But there a course of action to be taken seeking the views of the country when its heritage , history ,culture, social values, belief ,faits , names of its mountains, Tibet’s, legend dates, names of its cuties, names of dynasties and and are to be used.
Thus is a courtesy disciple which should be followed.
Multistakeholder approach does not prevent to do so
In almost all caves the agreement would be granted . In relatively few caves, agreement would also be granted with some conditions to respond to those values.
What bothers me is there are a handful number of people ( you joined them for the first time) having a purely conservative behavior collectively and collegiality criticized, attacked and sometimes aggressive to the extent that it could implied that it was a sort of repression ( dot talk )
Approach.
That is not admitted.
We should know that in this subject the notion of « majority “ /“ minority “ does not apply because the governments that are the stakeholder are always in minority status vis a vis others
I hope you have properly interpreted the fact mentioned.
Regards
Have a nice time
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Dec 2017, at 02:26, Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I respectfully agree with you that it is ‘only’ Heather’s views. I also respect Iran very much. But unfortunately sovereignty cannot extend beyond one's territory. Since ICANN and gTLD are trans national issues sovereignty might not be able to solve the problem - there will be 200 or more sovereigns having their own assertions - a sure recipe for chaos. And this is without the melee of rights in personam and rem.
That’s why the ICANN Bylaws become important and all stakeholders and managements have to adopt that as the final word, unequivocally.
Kind Regards
Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate
US Business Development
Mob +1 646 243 9857
<image001.png>
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys
rnaip.com
On Nov 30, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Aslam
Thank for the paper
However, it is simple the views of Dr. Heather Frorest and not more than that.
There are thousand of this type of articles which all reflect the views of their authors and nothing more
Kavouss
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Sorry, Kavoush, but I am not a famous lawyer at all
As for your claim to the “rights” to old names – unless you can cite some law that is nothing more than a claim. It is not at all “obvious” to me that you have any claim at all to those names … and the paper that Aslam cited makes clear why this is so.
If the basis for this discussion is going to be Iranian claims that it is “obvious” that they are right this is going to be a very short and fruitless conversation.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:20 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Paul
I recognise you as one of the most famous well known lawyers in the USA
You may wish to consider that for obvious thing there is no to have « so called « international law
Customer law which is the most oldest and most referenced law could also be used as a proper reference
You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis Which is one of the well known capital of one of the most ancient civilisation Acamanech in greater Iran
No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of Iran
Whose who have recognised history understand that
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:28, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation “sovereign rights” to place names … I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM To: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”).
I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening.
Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration.
There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law.
Greg
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All
There is no primacy issue here.
It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected
There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them
If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage
You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights
We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended
Tks
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
Kind Regards
Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate
US Business Development
Mob +1 646 243 9857
<image001.png>
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys
rnaip.com
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Robin Gross via icann.org
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD
.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply
While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative
Regards
Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
_______________________________________________ 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
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
_______________________________________________ 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 have to agree with Martin's statement. The well mentioned ideas are actually what will set the pace for the work we will be doing further down the road. Now the concern is if the ToR points 'clearly' to the discussion that has been going on. I do agree that our task is to deal exclusively with geographic names. Anything else is beyond our scope as mandated.
Alfredo Calderon eLearning Consultant calderon.alfredo@gmail.com |http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com | Skype: Alfredo_1212| wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon
Get your own email signature
On Dec 1, 2017, at 6:09 AM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi everyone,
Observing the email exchanges it seems we are diving into some of the debates that will be resurfaced during the WT5 process. It would be helpful if we could focus back on the primary action of formulating the ToR scope before we begin to get into the deeper discussions, which we can focus on later.
I applaud the enthusiasm of participants, please don’t let that wain. Let’s make sure that enthusiasm and passion is channeled in a positive and respectful way as we move forward with our work, encouraging broad participation and an appreciation of the different views brought to the group.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton Co-Leader, WT5
On 1 Dec 2017, at 08:03, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sir Thanks But there a course of action to be taken seeking the views of the country when its heritage , history ,culture, social values, belief ,faits , names of its mountains, Tibet’s, legend dates, names of its cuties, names of dynasties and and are to be used. Thus is a courtesy disciple which should be followed. Multistakeholder approach does not prevent to do so In almost all caves the agreement would be granted . In relatively few caves, agreement would also be granted with some conditions to respond to those values. What bothers me is there are a handful number of people ( you joined them for the first time) having a purely conservative behavior collectively and collegiality criticized, attacked and sometimes aggressive to the extent that it could implied that it was a sort of repression ( dot talk ) Approach. That is not admitted. We should know that in this subject the notion of « majority “ /“ minority “ does not apply because the governments that are the stakeholder are always in minority status vis a vis others I hope you have properly interpreted the fact mentioned. Regards Have a nice time Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Dec 2017, at 02:26, Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I respectfully agree with you that it is ‘only’ Heather’s views. I also respect Iran very much. But unfortunately sovereignty cannot extend beyond one's territory. Since ICANN and gTLD are trans national issues sovereignty might not be able to solve the problem - there will be 200 or more sovereigns having their own assertions - a sure recipe for chaos. And this is without the melee of rights in personam and rem.
That’s why the ICANN Bylaws become important and all stakeholders and managements have to adopt that as the final word, unequivocally.
Kind Regards
Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857
<image001.png>
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com
On Nov 30, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Aslam Thank for the paper However, it is simple the views of Dr. Heather Frorest and not more than that. There are thousand of this type of articles which all reflect the views of their authors and nothing more Kavouss
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote: Sorry, Kavoush, but I am not a famous lawyer at all
As for your claim to the “rights” to old names – unless you can cite some law that is nothing more than a claim. It is not at all “obvious” to me that you have any claim at all to those names … and the paper that Aslam cited makes clear why this is so.
If the basis for this discussion is going to be Iranian claims that it is “obvious” that they are right this is going to be a very short and fruitless conversation.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:20 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Paul
I recognise you as one of the most famous well known lawyers in the USA
You may wish to consider that for obvious thing there is no to have « so called « international law
Customer law which is the most oldest and most referenced law could also be used as a proper reference
You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis Which is one of the well known capital of one of the most ancient civilisation Acamanech in greater Iran
No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of Iran
Whose who have recognised history understand that
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:28, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation “sovereign rights” to place names … I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM To: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”).
I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening.
Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration.
There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law.
Greg
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All
There is no primacy issue here.
It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected
There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them
If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage
You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights
We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended
Tks
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
Kind Regards
Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate
US Business Development
Mob +1 646 243 9857
<image001.png>
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys
rnaip.com
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Robin Gross via icann.org
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD
.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply
While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative
Regards
Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
_______________________________________________ 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
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
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 Martin Thank you very much for your wise advice Pls note that I do not accept continuous attack to GAC and accusing people to look for supremacy Pls kindly note the the governments the names if their cities, rivets, mountains, historical monuments. The belief of their people, their cultures, their traditions, their dignities, their legends, their glorious past are at stake be continuously attacked , aggressors, harassed and offended by some conservatives Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Dec 2017, at 11:09, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi everyone,
Observing the email exchanges it seems we are diving into some of the debates that will be resurfaced during the WT5 process. It would be helpful if we could focus back on the primary action of formulating the ToR scope before we begin to get into the deeper discussions, which we can focus on later.
I applaud the enthusiasm of participants, please don’t let that wain. Let’s make sure that enthusiasm and passion is channeled in a positive and respectful way as we move forward with our work, encouraging broad participation and an appreciation of the different views brought to the group.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton Co-Leader, WT5
On 1 Dec 2017, at 08:03, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sir Thanks But there a course of action to be taken seeking the views of the country when its heritage , history ,culture, social values, belief ,faits , names of its mountains, Tibet’s, legend dates, names of its cuties, names of dynasties and and are to be used. Thus is a courtesy disciple which should be followed. Multistakeholder approach does not prevent to do so In almost all caves the agreement would be granted . In relatively few caves, agreement would also be granted with some conditions to respond to those values. What bothers me is there are a handful number of people ( you joined them for the first time) having a purely conservative behavior collectively and collegiality criticized, attacked and sometimes aggressive to the extent that it could implied that it was a sort of repression ( dot talk ) Approach. That is not admitted. We should know that in this subject the notion of « majority “ /“ minority “ does not apply because the governments that are the stakeholder are always in minority status vis a vis others I hope you have properly interpreted the fact mentioned. Regards Have a nice time Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Dec 2017, at 02:26, Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I respectfully agree with you that it is ‘only’ Heather’s views. I also respect Iran very much. But unfortunately sovereignty cannot extend beyond one's territory. Since ICANN and gTLD are trans national issues sovereignty might not be able to solve the problem - there will be 200 or more sovereigns having their own assertions - a sure recipe for chaos. And this is without the melee of rights in personam and rem.
That’s why the ICANN Bylaws become important and all stakeholders and managements have to adopt that as the final word, unequivocally.
Kind Regards
Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857
<image001.png>
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com
On Nov 30, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Aslam Thank for the paper However, it is simple the views of Dr. Heather Frorest and not more than that. There are thousand of this type of articles which all reflect the views of their authors and nothing more Kavouss
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote: Sorry, Kavoush, but I am not a famous lawyer at all
As for your claim to the “rights” to old names – unless you can cite some law that is nothing more than a claim. It is not at all “obvious” to me that you have any claim at all to those names … and the paper that Aslam cited makes clear why this is so.
If the basis for this discussion is going to be Iranian claims that it is “obvious” that they are right this is going to be a very short and fruitless conversation.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:20 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Paul
I recognise you as one of the most famous well known lawyers in the USA
You may wish to consider that for obvious thing there is no to have « so called « international law
Customer law which is the most oldest and most referenced law could also be used as a proper reference
You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis Which is one of the well known capital of one of the most ancient civilisation Acamanech in greater Iran
No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of Iran
Whose who have recognised history understand that
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:28, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation “sovereign rights” to place names … I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM To: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”).
I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening.
Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration.
There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law.
Greg
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All
There is no primacy issue here.
It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected
There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them
If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage
You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights
We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended
Tks
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
Kind Regards
Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate
US Business Development
Mob +1 646 243 9857
<image001.png>
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys
rnaip.com
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Robin Gross via icann.org
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD
.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply
While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative
Regards
Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
_______________________________________________ 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
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
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 Kavouss, I refer to your single email hereunder, and fully support your perception that this thread can be misinterpreted as a continuous attack on GAC. I request the Chairs to consider summarizing the real GeoNames related arguments to date, and start a new one Carlos Raul Gutierrez El 2017-12-01 05:37, Arasteh escribió:
Dear Martin Thank you very much for your wise advice Pls note that I do not accept continuous attack to GAC and accusing people to look for supremacy Pls kindly note the the governments the names if their cities, rivets, mountains, historical monuments. The belief of their people, their cultures, their traditions, their dignities, their legends, their glorious past are at stake be continuously attacked , aggressors, harassed and offended by some conservatives Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Dec 2017, at 11:09, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi everyone, Observing the email exchanges it seems we are diving into some of the debates that will be resurfaced during the WT5 process. It would be helpful if we could focus back on the primary action of formulating the ToR scope before we begin to get into the deeper discussions, which we can focus on later.
I applaud the enthusiasm of participants, please don't let that wain. Let's make sure that enthusiasm and passion is channeled in a positive and respectful way as we move forward with our work, encouraging broad participation and an appreciation of the different views brought to the group.
Kind regards,
Martin
MARTIN SUTTON Co-Leader, WT5
On 1 Dec 2017, at 08:03, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sir Thanks But there a course of action to be taken seeking the views of the country when its heritage , history ,culture, social values, belief ,faits , names of its mountains, Tibet's, legend dates, names of its cuties, names of dynasties and and are to be used. Thus is a courtesy disciple which should be followed. Multistakeholder approach does not prevent to do so In almost all caves the agreement would be granted . In relatively few caves, agreement would also be granted with some conditions to respond to those values. What bothers me is there are a handful number of people ( you joined them for the first time) having a purely conservative behavior collectively and collegiality criticized, attacked and sometimes aggressive to the extent that it could implied that it was a sort of repression ( dot talk ) Approach. That is not admitted. We should know that in this subject the notion of « majority " /" minority " does not apply because the governments that are the stakeholder are always in minority status vis a vis others I hope you have properly interpreted the fact mentioned. Regards Have a nice time Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Dec 2017, at 02:26, Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss I respectfully agree with you that it is 'only' Heather's views. I also respect Iran very much. But unfortunately sovereignty cannot extend beyond one's territory. Since ICANN and gTLD are trans national issues sovereignty might not be able to solve the problem - there will be 200 or more sovereigns having their own assertions - a sure recipe for chaos. And this is without the melee of rights in personam and rem.
That's why the ICANN Bylaws become important and all stakeholders and managements have to adopt that as the final word, unequivocally.
KIND REGARDS
ASLAM G MOHAMED. ADVOCATE US BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
MOB +1 646 243 9857 [1] <IMAGE001.PNG> RNA, TECHNOLOGY AND IP ATTORNEYS RNAIP.COM [2]
On Nov 30, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Aslam Thank for the paper However, it is simple the views of Dr. Heather Frorest and not more than that. There are thousand of this type of articles which all reflect the views of their authors and nothing more Kavouss
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Sorry, Kavoush, but I am not a famous lawyer at all
As for your claim to the "rights" to old names - unless you can cite some law that is nothing more than a claim. It is not at all "obvious" to me that you have any claim at all to those names ... and the paper that Aslam cited makes clear why this is so.
If the basis for this discussion is going to be Iranian claims that it is "obvious" that they are right this is going to be a very short and fruitless conversation.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 [3]
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 [4]
FROM: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] SENT: Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:20 PM TO: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> CC: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Paul
I recognise you as one of the most famous well known lawyers in the USA
You may wish to consider that for obvious thing there is no to have « so called « international law
Customer law which is the most oldest and most referenced law could also be used as a proper reference
You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis Which is one of the well known capital of one of the most ancient civilisation Acamanech in greater Iran
No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of Iran
Whose who have recognised history understand that
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:28, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Indeed, I would go further - there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation "sovereign rights" to place names ... I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 [3]
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 [4]
FROM: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] SENT: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM TO: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> CC: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the "primacy issue." The claim that "there is no primacy issue" is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means "there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments").
I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that's not happening.
Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other's views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration.
There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law.
Greg
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All
There is no primacy issue here.
It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected
There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them
If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage
You can support each other's as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights
We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended
Tks
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 [3]
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 [4]
FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Greg Shatan SENT: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM TO: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> CC: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant's comments as "personal views" seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally "personal" as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of "Animal Farm," where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it's important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one's own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it's approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
KIND REGARDS
ASLAM G MOHAMED. ADVOCATE
US BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
MOB +1 646 243 9857 [1]
<image001.png>
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys
RNAIP.COM [2]
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
ROBIN GROSS VIA [5] ICANN.ORG [6]
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
I didn't have audio on last night's WT5 call, so thought I'd send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
_Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an "approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to "put the cart before the horse", but this bracketed language does exactly that._
Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely _in line with draft _The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option _.There are_ _ several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD_
_ ._
_Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group's mandate. Let's focus on defining what "geo-names" are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT_
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly "negative" analysis that won't consider "positives" as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community -- we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. _Reply_
_While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative_
_Regards_
Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week's call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
MARTIN SUTTON
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn't have audio on last night's WT5 call, so thought I'd send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an "approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to "put the cart before the horse", but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group's mandate. Let's focus on defining what "geo-names" are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly "negative" analysis that won't consider "positives" as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community -- we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [7]
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [7]
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [7] ------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [7]
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [7]
------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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] tel:+1%20646%20243%209857 [2] http://rnaip.com/ [3] tel:(202)%20329-9650 [4] tel:(202)%20738-1739 [5] https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en [6] http://icann.org/ [7] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
I agree with Carlos Raúl on this. I’ve been hesitant to opine in the thread since I’m new here, and thought imprudent adding to what I perceived as mounting tension. However, I also find this topic very interesting and I don’t want to miss my chance to say what I wanted to say, now that the “international law” issue could not be touched upon in a new thread. So here’s my comment: As ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws establish that ICANN shall carry out its activities “in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law” and considering that general customary law and some treaties (e.g. ICCPR Art. 27) promote and protect the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, I tend to support Carlos Raúl’s instinct, that perhaps a wider International Law is possibly at relevant play here, beyond merely the (very important) law of sovereignty: in our ideal borderless, single, interoperable Internet, we must always pay due regard to a) trying to move away from purely political/governmental borders; and b) boosting cultural and linguistic diversity and understanding. If we can strike a balance in the ToR & scope that takes those elements into account, I feel that would be positive. Regards, Javier Rúa-Jovet ALAC +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Dec 1, 2017, at 10:02 AM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> wrote:
Dear Kavouss,
I refer to your single email hereunder, and fully support your perception that this thread can be misinterpreted as a continuous attack on GAC. I request the Chairs to consider summarizing the real GeoNames related arguments to date, and start a new one
Carlos Raul Gutierrez
El 2017-12-01 05:37, Arasteh escribió:
Dear Martin Thank you very much for your wise advice Pls note that I do not accept continuous attack to GAC and accusing people to look for supremacy Pls kindly note the the governments the names if their cities, rivets, mountains, historical monuments. The belief of their people, their cultures, their traditions, their dignities, their legends, their glorious past are at stake be continuously attacked , aggressors, harassed and offended by some conservatives Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Dec 2017, at 11:09, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi everyone,
Observing the email exchanges it seems we are diving into some of the debates that will be resurfaced during the WT5 process. It would be helpful if we could focus back on the primary action of formulating the ToR scope before we begin to get into the deeper discussions, which we can focus on later.
I applaud the enthusiasm of participants, please don't let that wain. Let's make sure that enthusiasm and passion is channeled in a positive and respectful way as we move forward with our work, encouraging broad participation and an appreciation of the different views brought to the group.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton Co-Leader, WT5
On 1 Dec 2017, at 08:03, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Sir Thanks But there a course of action to be taken seeking the views of the country when its heritage , history ,culture, social values, belief ,faits , names of its mountains, Tibet's, legend dates, names of its cuties, names of dynasties and and are to be used. Thus is a courtesy disciple which should be followed. Multistakeholder approach does not prevent to do so In almost all caves the agreement would be granted . In relatively few caves, agreement would also be granted with some conditions to respond to those values. What bothers me is there are a handful number of people ( you joined them for the first time) having a purely conservative behavior collectively and collegiality criticized, attacked and sometimes aggressive to the extent that it could implied that it was a sort of repression ( dot talk ) Approach. That is not admitted. We should know that in this subject the notion of « majority " /" minority " does not apply because the governments that are the stakeholder are always in minority status vis a vis others I hope you have properly interpreted the fact mentioned. Regards Have a nice time Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Dec 2017, at 02:26, Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote: Dear Kavouss
I respectfully agree with you that it is 'only' Heather's views. I also respect Iran very much. But unfortunately sovereignty cannot extend beyond one's territory. Since ICANN and gTLD are trans national issues sovereignty might not be able to solve the problem - there will be 200 or more sovereigns having their own assertions - a sure recipe for chaos. And this is without the melee of rights in personam and rem.
That's why the ICANN Bylaws become important and all stakeholders and managements have to adopt that as the final word, unequivocally.
Kind Regards
Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857
<image001.png> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com
On Nov 30, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Aslam Thank for the paper However, it is simple the views of Dr. Heather Frorest and not more than that. There are thousand of this type of articles which all reflect the views of their authors and nothing more Kavouss
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote: > Sorry, Kavoush, but I am not a famous lawyer at all > > > > As for your claim to the "rights" to old names – unless you can cite some law that is nothing more than a claim. It is not at all "obvious" to me that you have any claim at all to those names ... and the paper that Aslam cited makes clear why this is so. > > > > If the basis for this discussion is going to be Iranian claims that it is "obvious" that they are right this is going to be a very short and fruitless conversation. > > > > Paul > > > > Paul Rosenzweig > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 > > VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 > > > > From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:20 PM > To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > > > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well > > > > > Paul > > I recognise you as one of the most famous well known lawyers in the USA > > You may wish to consider that for obvious thing there is no to have « so called « international law > > Customer law which is the most oldest and most referenced law could also be used as a proper reference > > You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis Which is one of the well known capital of one of the most ancient civilisation Acamanech in greater Iran > > No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of Iran > > Whose who have recognised history understand that > > Kavouss > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:28, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote: > > Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation "sovereign rights" to place names ... I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law. > > > > Paul > > > > Paul Rosenzweig > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 > > VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 > > > > From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM > To: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > Cc: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well > > > > Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the "primacy issue." The claim that "there is no primacy issue" is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means "there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments"). > > > > I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that's not happening. > > > > Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other's views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration. > > > > There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law. > > > > Greg > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear All > > There is no primacy issue here. > > It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected > > There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them > > If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage > > You can support each other's as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights > > We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended > > Tks > > Kavouss > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote: > > Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior. > > > > Paul > > > > Paul Rosenzweig > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 > > VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 > > > > From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM > To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> > Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well > > > > Robin; > > > > Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree. > > > > It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant's comments as "personal views" seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally "personal" as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of "Animal Farm," where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. > > > > Similarly, it's important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one's own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others. > > > > We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process. > > > > Greg > > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote: > > Dear Kavouss > > > > I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it's approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises. > > > > Kind Regards > > > > Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate > > US Business Development > > Mob +1 646 243 9857 > > > > > <image001.png> > > > RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys > > rnaip.com > > > > On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Robin Gross via icann.org > > 6:48 PM (1 hour ago) > > <blocked.gif> > > > <blocked.gif> > > <blocked.gif> within the lines > > > > > Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin > > to gnso-newgtld-w. > > <blocked.gif> > > I didn't have audio on last night's WT5 call, so thought I'd send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. > > Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an "approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to "put the cart before the horse", but this bracketed language does exactly that. > > Reply > > This is your views, > > Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD > > . > > Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group's mandate. Let's focus on defining what "geo-names" are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT > > Reply > > Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria > > While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly "negative" analysis that won't consider "positives" as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. > Reply > > While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative > > Regards > > Kavouss > > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote: > > Hi Robin, > > > > Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week's call. > > > > Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Martin > > > > Martin Sutton > > Executive Director > > Brand Registry Group > > martin@brandregistrygroup.org > > > > On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote: > > > > I didn't have audio on last night's WT5 call, so thought I'd send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. > > Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an "approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to "put the cart before the horse", but this bracketed language does exactly that. > > Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group's mandate. Let's focus on defining what "geo-names" are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT. > > While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly "negative" analysis that won't consider "positives" as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. > > Thanks, > Robin > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > > IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
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
Thank you Javier! While I appreciate DR. Forrest work (in spite of the high price and the lack of Amazon Prime in Costa Rica) my reading of there work is that the Paris Agreement may be a good base for defending the cases of trademark law, and should help Patagonia and others to get TLDs without Government interference. But from the point of view of cultural and linguistic characteristics, it should be considered arancelary at best (if at all). For individuals living under the wrong top-down political borders, the DNS of a borderless internet should give them the opportunity to differentiate their cultural and linguistic characteristics , without needing to resort to secessionism, civl or international wars. Before we had WT5 we hovered around the possibility of categorization.
From that point of view, the very narrow definition that has been proposed to WT5, represents no great difference to the actual AGB.
Nice weekend to all of you Carlos Raul El 2017-12-01 08:29, Javier Rua escribió:
I agree with Carlos Raúl on this.
I've been hesitant to opine in the thread since I'm new here, and thought imprudent adding to what I perceived as mounting tension.
However, I also find this topic very interesting and I don't want to miss my chance to say what I wanted to say, now that the "international law" issue could not be touched upon in a new thread.
So here's my comment:
As ICANN's Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws establish that ICANN shall carry out its activities "in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law" and considering that general customary law and some treaties (e.g. ICCPR Art. 27) promote and protect the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, I tend to support Carlos Raúl's instinct, that perhaps a wider International Law is possibly at relevant play here, beyond merely the (very important) law of sovereignty: in our ideal borderless, single, interoperable Internet, we must always pay due regard to a) trying to move away from purely political/governmental borders; and b) boosting cultural and linguistic diversity and understanding.
If we can strike a balance in the ToR & scope that takes those elements into account, I feel that would be positive.
Regards, Javier Rúa-Jovet ALAC
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Dec 1, 2017, at 10:02 AM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> wrote:
Dear Kavouss,
I refer to your single email hereunder, and fully support your perception that this thread can be misinterpreted as a continuous attack on GAC. I request the Chairs to consider summarizing the real GeoNames related arguments to date, and start a new one
Carlos Raul Gutierrez
El 2017-12-01 05:37, Arasteh escribió: Dear Martin Thank you very much for your wise advice Pls note that I do not accept continuous attack to GAC and accusing people to look for supremacy Pls kindly note the the governments the names if their cities, rivets, mountains, historical monuments. The belief of their people, their cultures, their traditions, their dignities, their legends, their glorious past are at stake be continuously attacked , aggressors, harassed and offended by some conservatives Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Dec 2017, at 11:09, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi everyone, Observing the email exchanges it seems we are diving into some of the debates that will be resurfaced during the WT5 process. It would be helpful if we could focus back on the primary action of formulating the ToR scope before we begin to get into the deeper discussions, which we can focus on later.
I applaud the enthusiasm of participants, please don't let that wain. Let's make sure that enthusiasm and passion is channeled in a positive and respectful way as we move forward with our work, encouraging broad participation and an appreciation of the different views brought to the group.
Kind regards,
Martin
MARTIN SUTTON Co-Leader, WT5
On 1 Dec 2017, at 08:03, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sir Thanks But there a course of action to be taken seeking the views of the country when its heritage , history ,culture, social values, belief ,faits , names of its mountains, Tibet's, legend dates, names of its cuties, names of dynasties and and are to be used. Thus is a courtesy disciple which should be followed. Multistakeholder approach does not prevent to do so In almost all caves the agreement would be granted . In relatively few caves, agreement would also be granted with some conditions to respond to those values. What bothers me is there are a handful number of people ( you joined them for the first time) having a purely conservative behavior collectively and collegiality criticized, attacked and sometimes aggressive to the extent that it could implied that it was a sort of repression ( dot talk ) Approach. That is not admitted. We should know that in this subject the notion of « majority " /" minority " does not apply because the governments that are the stakeholder are always in minority status vis a vis others I hope you have properly interpreted the fact mentioned. Regards Have a nice time Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Dec 2017, at 02:26, Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss I respectfully agree with you that it is 'only' Heather's views. I also respect Iran very much. But unfortunately sovereignty cannot extend beyond one's territory. Since ICANN and gTLD are trans national issues sovereignty might not be able to solve the problem - there will be 200 or more sovereigns having their own assertions - a sure recipe for chaos. And this is without the melee of rights in personam and rem.
That's why the ICANN Bylaws become important and all stakeholders and managements have to adopt that as the final word, unequivocally.
KIND REGARDS
ASLAM G MOHAMED. ADVOCATE US BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
MOB +1 646 243 9857 [1] <IMAGE001.PNG> RNA, TECHNOLOGY AND IP ATTORNEYS RNAIP.COM [2]
On Nov 30, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Aslam Thank for the paper However, it is simple the views of Dr. Heather Frorest and not more than that. There are thousand of this type of articles which all reflect the views of their authors and nothing more Kavouss
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Sorry, Kavoush, but I am not a famous lawyer at all
As for your claim to the "rights" to old names - unless you can cite some law that is nothing more than a claim. It is not at all "obvious" to me that you have any claim at all to those names ... and the paper that Aslam cited makes clear why this is so.
If the basis for this discussion is going to be Iranian claims that it is "obvious" that they are right this is going to be a very short and fruitless conversation.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 [3]
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 [4]
FROM: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] SENT: Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:20 PM TO: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> CC: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Paul
I recognise you as one of the most famous well known lawyers in the USA
You may wish to consider that for obvious thing there is no to have « so called « international law
Customer law which is the most oldest and most referenced law could also be used as a proper reference
You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis Which is one of the well known capital of one of the most ancient civilisation Acamanech in greater Iran
No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of Iran
Whose who have recognised history understand that
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:28, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Indeed, I would go further - there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation "sovereign rights" to place names ... I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 [3]
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 [4]
FROM: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] SENT: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM TO: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> CC: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the "primacy issue." The claim that "there is no primacy issue" is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means "there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments").
I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that's not happening.
Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other's views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration.
There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law.
Greg
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All
There is no primacy issue here.
It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected
There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them
If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage
You can support each other's as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights
We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended
Tks
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 [3]
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 [4]
FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Greg Shatan SENT: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM TO: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> CC: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant's comments as "personal views" seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally "personal" as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of "Animal Farm," where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it's important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one's own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it's approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
KIND REGARDS
ASLAM G MOHAMED. ADVOCATE
US BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
MOB +1 646 243 9857 [1]
<image001.png>
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys
RNAIP.COM [2]
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
ROBIN GROSS VIA [5] ICANN.ORG [6]
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
<blocked.gif>
<blocked.gif>
<blocked.gif> within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
<blocked.gif>
I didn't have audio on last night's WT5 call, so thought I'd send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
_Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an "approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to "put the cart before the horse", but this bracketed language does exactly that._
Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely _in line with draft _The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option _.There are_ _ several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD_
_ ._
_Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group's mandate. Let's focus on defining what "geo-names" are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT_
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly "negative" analysis that won't consider "positives" as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community -- we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. _Reply_
_While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative_
_Regards_
Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week's call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
MARTIN SUTTON
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn't have audio on last night's WT5 call, so thought I'd send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an "approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to "put the cart before the horse", but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group's mandate. Let's focus on defining what "geo-names" are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly "negative" analysis that won't consider "positives" as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community -- we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [7]
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [7]
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [7] ------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [7]
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [7]
------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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] tel:+1%20646%20243%209857 [2] http://rnaip.com/ [3] tel:(202)%20329-9650 [4] tel:(202)%20738-1739 [5] https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en [6] http://icann.org/ [7] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Javier and all colleagues…. Nothing bad in the words you voiced. A Balance is important for the Geonames. Bottom up is the very basis of what PDPs are into. Geonames from its very start has been controversial in many terms because every one wants to stick to where they stand. Many WG / WT are having the same kind of articulation and issues. These are because some feel they have a direct right and some cannot budge because they feel they need to. The importance at the base is where do we strike the balance. Am not going to comment on some Geonames that has been blocking ICANN Org to move forward in the decision process. One thing for sure is going to happen and i cannot say no to those real issues where ccTLD are a problem privately owned creating issues that needs solutions and sometimes even over costly. The Geonames may turn to be a solution for certain government where ccTLDs have been and issue and will continue for a longer time to come. So the question is where would the balance be so that we can help ICANN org move forward in the decision process. WT5 has been created to see that as a group we describe the terms and look at the issues and come up with probable solutions. This WT has grinded a lot of people from various scope. Intellectual property evangelist/lawyers, who also have a right where intellectual property is important, on the other hand you have Governments who wants certain names as well they are and may be right as well. At the end we cannot have a committee that goes on for years. I assume we have a time line and i would surely urge all to work in collaboration and find the right balance. It will not be easy but i would wish all colleagues here to see through the important lines and not be seated on our positions without seeing through solutions. Let’s get things moving else in 10 years time we will still be sitting here. I am not taking sides but it is important we respect each others views and be humble and listen and make positive comments that would move all forward. Kris
On Dec 1, 2017, at 18:29, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Carlos Raúl on this.
I’ve been hesitant to opine in the thread since I’m new here, and thought imprudent adding to what I perceived as mounting tension.
However, I also find this topic very interesting and I don’t want to miss my chance to say what I wanted to say, now that the “international law” issue could not be touched upon in a new thread.
So here’s my comment:
As ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws establish that ICANN shall carry out its activities “in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law” and considering that general customary law and some treaties (e.g. ICCPR Art. 27) promote and protect the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, I tend to support Carlos Raúl’s instinct, that perhaps a wider International Law is possibly at relevant play here, beyond merely the (very important) law of sovereignty: in our ideal borderless, single, interoperable Internet, we must always pay due regard to a) trying to move away from purely political/governmental borders; and b) boosting cultural and linguistic diversity and understanding.
If we can strike a balance in the ToR & scope that takes those elements into account, I feel that would be positive.
Regards,
Javier Rúa-Jovet ALAC +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua <https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua>
On Dec 1, 2017, at 10:02 AM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss,
I refer to your single email hereunder, and fully support your perception that this thread can be misinterpreted as a continuous attack on GAC. I request the Chairs to consider summarizing the real GeoNames related arguments to date, and start a new one
Carlos Raul Gutierrez
El 2017-12-01 05:37, Arasteh escribió:
Dear Martin Thank you very much for your wise advice Pls note that I do not accept continuous attack to GAC and accusing people to look for supremacy Pls kindly note the the governments the names if their cities, rivets, mountains, historical monuments. The belief of their people, their cultures, their traditions, their dignities, their legends, their glorious past are at stake be continuously attacked , aggressors, harassed and offended by some conservatives Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Dec 2017, at 11:09, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> wrote:
Hi everyone,
Observing the email exchanges it seems we are diving into some of the debates that will be resurfaced during the WT5 process. It would be helpful if we could focus back on the primary action of formulating the ToR scope before we begin to get into the deeper discussions, which we can focus on later.
I applaud the enthusiasm of participants, please don't let that wain. Let's make sure that enthusiasm and passion is channeled in a positive and respectful way as we move forward with our work, encouraging broad participation and an appreciation of the different views brought to the group.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton Co-Leader, WT5
On 1 Dec 2017, at 08:03, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Sir Thanks But there a course of action to be taken seeking the views of the country when its heritage , history ,culture, social values, belief ,faits , names of its mountains, Tibet's, legend dates, names of its cuties, names of dynasties and and are to be used. Thus is a courtesy disciple which should be followed. Multistakeholder approach does not prevent to do so In almost all caves the agreement would be granted . In relatively few caves, agreement would also be granted with some conditions to respond to those values. What bothers me is there are a handful number of people ( you joined them for the first time) having a purely conservative behavior collectively and collegiality criticized, attacked and sometimes aggressive to the extent that it could implied that it was a sort of repression ( dot talk ) Approach. That is not admitted. We should know that in this subject the notion of « majority " /" minority " does not apply because the governments that are the stakeholder are always in minority status vis a vis others I hope you have properly interpreted the fact mentioned. Regards Have a nice time Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Dec 2017, at 02:26, Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I respectfully agree with you that it is 'only' Heather's views. I also respect Iran very much. But unfortunately sovereignty cannot extend beyond one's territory. Since ICANN and gTLD are trans national issues sovereignty might not be able to solve the problem - there will be 200 or more sovereigns having their own assertions - a sure recipe for chaos. And this is without the melee of rights in personam and rem.
That's why the ICANN Bylaws become important and all stakeholders and managements have to adopt that as the final word, unequivocally.
Kind Regards
Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857 <tel:+1%20646%20243%209857>
<image001.png> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/>
> On Nov 30, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: > Dear Aslam > Thank for the paper > However, it is simple the views of Dr. Heather Frorest and not more than that. > There are thousand of this type of articles which all reflect the views of their authors and nothing more > Kavouss > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: > Sorry, Kavoush, but I am not a famous lawyer at all > > > > As for your claim to the "rights" to old names – unless you can cite some law that is nothing more than a claim. It is not at all "obvious" to me that you have any claim at all to those names ... and the paper that Aslam cited makes clear why this is so. > > > > If the basis for this discussion is going to be Iranian claims that it is "obvious" that they are right this is going to be a very short and fruitless conversation. > > > > Paul > > > > Paul Rosenzweig > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:(202)%20329-9650> > VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <tel:(202)%20738-1739> > > > From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:20 PM > To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> > Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> > > > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well > > > > > Paul > > I recognise you as one of the most famous well known lawyers in the USA > > You may wish to consider that for obvious thing there is no to have « so called « international law > > Customer law which is the most oldest and most referenced law could also be used as a proper reference > > You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis Which is one of the well known capital of one of the most ancient civilisation Acamanech in greater Iran > > No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of Iran > > Whose who have recognised history understand that > > Kavouss > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:28, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: > > Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation "sovereign rights" to place names ... I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law. > > > > Paul > > > > Paul Rosenzweig > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:(202)%20329-9650> > VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <tel:(202)%20738-1739> > > > From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM > To: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> > Cc: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well > > > > Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the "primacy issue." The claim that "there is no primacy issue" is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means "there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments"). > > > > I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that's not happening. > > > > Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other's views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration. > > > > There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law. > > > > Greg > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Dear All > > There is no primacy issue here. > > It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected > > There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them > > If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage > > You can support each other's as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights > > We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended > > Tks > > Kavouss > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: > > Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior. > > > > Paul > > > > Paul Rosenzweig > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:(202)%20329-9650> > VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <tel:(202)%20738-1739> > > > From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM > To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> > Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well > > > > Robin; > > > > Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree. > > > > It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant's comments as "personal views" seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally "personal" as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of "Animal Farm," where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. > > > > Similarly, it's important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one's own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others. > > > > We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process. > > > > Greg > > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> wrote: > > Dear Kavouss > > > > I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it's approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises. > > > > Kind Regards > > > > Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate > > US Business Development > > Mob +1 646 243 9857 <tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> > > > > <image001.png> > > > RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys > > rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/> > > > > On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Robin Grossvia <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> icann.org <http://icann.org/> > > 6:48 PM (1 hour ago) > > <blocked.gif> > > > <blocked.gif> > > <blocked.gif> within the lines > > > > > Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin > > to gnso-newgtld-w. > > <blocked.gif> > > I didn't have audio on last night's WT5 call, so thought I'd send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. > > Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an "approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to "put the cart before the horse", but this bracketed language does exactly that. > > Reply > > This is your views, > > Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD > > . > > Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group's mandate. Let's focus on defining what "geo-names" are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT > > Reply > > Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria > > While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly "negative" analysis that won't consider "positives" as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. > Reply > > While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative > > Regards > > Kavouss > > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> wrote: > > Hi Robin, > > > > Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week's call. > > > > Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Martin > > > > Martin Sutton > > Executive Director > > Brand Registry Group > > martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > > > On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: > > > > I didn't have audio on last night's WT5 call, so thought I'd send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. > > Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an "approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to "put the cart before the horse", but this bracketed language does exactly that. > > Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group's mandate. Let's focus on defining what "geo-names" are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT. > > While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly "negative" analysis that won't consider "positives" as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. > > Thanks, > Robin > > _______________________________________________ > 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://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 <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> > > > > > IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. > > _______________________________________________ > 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://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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
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://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 <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 <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 <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
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
+1 on that Martin
On Dec 1, 2017, at 14:09, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi everyone,
Observing the email exchanges it seems we are diving into some of the debates that will be resurfaced during the WT5 process. It would be helpful if we could focus back on the primary action of formulating the ToR scope before we begin to get into the deeper discussions, which we can focus on later.
I applaud the enthusiasm of participants, please don’t let that wain. Let’s make sure that enthusiasm and passion is channeled in a positive and respectful way as we move forward with our work, encouraging broad participation and an appreciation of the different views brought to the group.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton Co-Leader, WT5
On 1 Dec 2017, at 08:03, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Sir Thanks But there a course of action to be taken seeking the views of the country when its heritage , history ,culture, social values, belief ,faits , names of its mountains, Tibet’s, legend dates, names of its cuties, names of dynasties and and are to be used. Thus is a courtesy disciple which should be followed. Multistakeholder approach does not prevent to do so In almost all caves the agreement would be granted . In relatively few caves, agreement would also be granted with some conditions to respond to those values. What bothers me is there are a handful number of people ( you joined them for the first time) having a purely conservative behavior collectively and collegiality criticized, attacked and sometimes aggressive to the extent that it could implied that it was a sort of repression ( dot talk ) Approach. That is not admitted. We should know that in this subject the notion of « majority “ /“ minority “ does not apply because the governments that are the stakeholder are always in minority status vis a vis others I hope you have properly interpreted the fact mentioned. Regards Have a nice time Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Dec 2017, at 02:26, Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I respectfully agree with you that it is ‘only’ Heather’s views. I also respect Iran very much. But unfortunately sovereignty cannot extend beyond one's territory. Since ICANN and gTLD are trans national issues sovereignty might not be able to solve the problem - there will be 200 or more sovereigns having their own assertions - a sure recipe for chaos. And this is without the melee of rights in personam and rem.
That’s why the ICANN Bylaws become important and all stakeholders and managements have to adopt that as the final word, unequivocally.
Kind Regards
Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857 <tel:+1%20646%20243%209857>
<image001.png>
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/>
On Nov 30, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Aslam Thank for the paper However, it is simple the views of Dr. Heather Frorest and not more than that. There are thousand of this type of articles which all reflect the views of their authors and nothing more Kavouss
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Sorry, Kavoush, but I am not a famous lawyer at all
As for your claim to the “rights” to old names – unless you can cite some law that is nothing more than a claim. It is not at all “obvious” to me that you have any claim at all to those names … and the paper that Aslam cited makes clear why this is so.
If the basis for this discussion is going to be Iranian claims that it is “obvious” that they are right this is going to be a very short and fruitless conversation.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <tel:(202)%20738-1739>
From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:20 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Paul
I recognise you as one of the most famous well known lawyers in the USA
You may wish to consider that for obvious thing there is no to have « so called « international law
Customer law which is the most oldest and most referenced law could also be used as a proper reference
You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis Which is one of the well known capital of one of the most ancient civilisation Acamanech in greater Iran
No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of Iran
Whose who have recognised history understand that
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:28, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation “sovereign rights” to place names … I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <tel:(202)%20738-1739>
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM To: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”).
I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening.
Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration.
There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law.
Greg
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear All
There is no primacy issue here.
It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected
There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them
If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage
You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights
We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended
Tks
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <tel:(202)%20738-1739>
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
Kind Regards
Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate
US Business Development
Mob +1 646 243 9857 <tel:+1%20646%20243%209857>
<image001.png>
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys
rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/>
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Robin Gross via <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> icann.org <http://icann.org/>
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD
.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply
While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative
Regards
Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote:
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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://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 <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
_______________________________________________ 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://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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
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
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
So long as the terms of reference allow discussion of whether or not government’s have some unique role in geonames, I am fine with the TOR. My reaction was to my perception that some were suggesting ToRs that excluded that discussion by entrenching the existing practices as preferred. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Sutton Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 5:10 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Hi everyone, Observing the email exchanges it seems we are diving into some of the debates that will be resurfaced during the WT5 process. It would be helpful if we could focus back on the primary action of formulating the ToR scope before we begin to get into the deeper discussions, which we can focus on later. I applaud the enthusiasm of participants, please don’t let that wain. Let’s make sure that enthusiasm and passion is channeled in a positive and respectful way as we move forward with our work, encouraging broad participation and an appreciation of the different views brought to the group. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Co-Leader, WT5 On 1 Dec 2017, at 08:03, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear Sir Thanks But there a course of action to be taken seeking the views of the country when its heritage , history ,culture, social values, belief ,faits , names of its mountains, Tibet’s, legend dates, names of its cuties, names of dynasties and and are to be used. Thus is a courtesy disciple which should be followed. Multistakeholder approach does not prevent to do so In almost all caves the agreement would be granted . In relatively few caves, agreement would also be granted with some conditions to respond to those values. What bothers me is there are a handful number of people ( you joined them for the first time) having a purely conservative behavior collectively and collegiality criticized, attacked and sometimes aggressive to the extent that it could implied that it was a sort of repression ( dot talk ) Approach. That is not admitted. We should know that in this subject the notion of « majority “ /“ minority “ does not apply because the governments that are the stakeholder are always in minority status vis a vis others I hope you have properly interpreted the fact mentioned. Regards Have a nice time Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 1 Dec 2017, at 02:26, Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com> > wrote: Dear Kavouss I respectfully agree with you that it is ‘only’ Heather’s views. I also respect Iran very much. But unfortunately sovereignty cannot extend beyond one's territory. Since ICANN and gTLD are trans national issues sovereignty might not be able to solve the problem - there will be 200 or more sovereigns having their own assertions - a sure recipe for chaos. And this is without the melee of rights in personam and rem. That’s why the ICANN Bylaws become important and all stakeholders and managements have to adopt that as the final word, unequivocally. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857 <tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> <image001.png> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/> On Nov 30, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear Aslam Thank for the paper However, it is simple the views of Dr. Heather Frorest and not more than that. There are thousand of this type of articles which all reflect the views of their authors and nothing more Kavouss On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote: Sorry, Kavoush, but I am not a famous lawyer at all As for your claim to the “rights” to old names – unless you can cite some law that is nothing more than a claim. It is not at all “obvious” to me that you have any claim at all to those names … and the paper that Aslam cited makes clear why this is so. If the basis for this discussion is going to be Iranian claims that it is “obvious” that they are right this is going to be a very short and fruitless conversation. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <tel:(202)%20738-1739> From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> ] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:20 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >; Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com> >; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Paul I recognise you as one of the most famous well known lawyers in the USA You may wish to consider that for obvious thing there is no to have « so called « international law Customer law which is the most oldest and most referenced law could also be used as a proper reference You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis Which is one of the well known capital of one of the most ancient civilisation Acamanech in greater Iran No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of Iran Whose who have recognised history understand that Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:28, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote: Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation “sovereign rights” to place names … I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <tel:(202)%20738-1739> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM To: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > Cc: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com> >; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”). I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening. Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration. There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law. Greg On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear All There is no primacy issue here. It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote: Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <tel:(202)%20738-1739> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com> > Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Robin; Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree. It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others. We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process. Greg On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com> > wrote: Dear Kavouss I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857 <tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> <image001.png> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/> On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Robin Gross <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> via icann.org <http://icann.org/> 6:48 PM (1 hour ago) <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> within the lines Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w. <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD . Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative Regards Kavouss On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > wrote: Hi Robin, Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call. Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> > wrote: I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT. While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Thanks, Robin _______________________________________________ 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 _____ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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 _____ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks Paul, The government's role has been entrenched only since the AGB to the best of my knowledge but I appreciate if have to learn otherwise. So the options in my view are 1. Leave the AGB as it is, so that the role does not GROW 2. Let other stakeholders paly a bigger role so that there is a counterweight to Puerto political power. I hardly see a possibility to go back to the world previous to the AGB. On December 1, 2017 9:17:11 AM CST, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
So long as the terms of reference allow discussion of whether or not government’s have some unique role in geonames, I am fine with the TOR. My reaction was to my perception that some were suggesting ToRs that excluded that discussion by entrenching the existing practices as preferred.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Sutton Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 5:10 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Hi everyone,
Observing the email exchanges it seems we are diving into some of the debates that will be resurfaced during the WT5 process. It would be helpful if we could focus back on the primary action of formulating the ToR scope before we begin to get into the deeper discussions, which we can focus on later.
I applaud the enthusiasm of participants, please don’t let that wain. Let’s make sure that enthusiasm and passion is channeled in a positive and respectful way as we move forward with our work, encouraging broad participation and an appreciation of the different views brought to the group.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Co-Leader, WT5
On 1 Dec 2017, at 08:03, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote:
Dear Sir
Thanks
But there a course of action to be taken seeking the views of the country when its heritage , history ,culture, social values, belief ,faits , names of its mountains, Tibet’s, legend dates, names of its cuties, names of dynasties and and are to be used.
Thus is a courtesy disciple which should be followed.
Multistakeholder approach does not prevent to do so
In almost all caves the agreement would be granted . In relatively few caves, agreement would also be granted with some conditions to respond to those values.
What bothers me is there are a handful number of people ( you joined them for the first time) having a purely conservative behavior collectively and collegiality criticized, attacked and sometimes aggressive to the extent that it could implied that it was a sort of repression ( dot talk )
Approach.
That is not admitted.
We should know that in this subject the notion of « majority “ /“ minority “ does not apply because the governments that are the stakeholder are always in minority status vis a vis others
I hope you have properly interpreted the fact mentioned.
Regards
Have a nice time
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Dec 2017, at 02:26, Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com> > wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I respectfully agree with you that it is ‘only’ Heather’s views. I also respect Iran very much. But unfortunately sovereignty cannot extend beyond one's territory. Since ICANN and gTLD are trans national issues sovereignty might not be able to solve the problem - there will be 200 or more sovereigns having their own assertions - a sure recipe for chaos. And this is without the melee of rights in personam and rem.
That’s why the ICANN Bylaws become important and all stakeholders and managements have to adopt that as the final word, unequivocally.
Kind Regards
Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate
US Business Development
Mob +1 646 243 9857 <tel:+1%20646%20243%209857>
<image001.png>
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys
rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/>
On Nov 30, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote:
Dear Aslam
Thank for the paper
However, it is simple the views of Dr. Heather Frorest and not more than that.
There are thousand of this type of articles which all reflect the views of their authors and nothing more
Kavouss
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote:
Sorry, Kavoush, but I am not a famous lawyer at all
As for your claim to the “rights” to old names – unless you can cite some law that is nothing more than a claim. It is not at all “obvious” to me that you have any claim at all to those names … and the paper that Aslam cited makes clear why this is so.
If the basis for this discussion is going to be Iranian claims that it is “obvious” that they are right this is going to be a very short and fruitless conversation.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <tel:(202)%20738-1739>
From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> ] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:20 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >; Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com> >; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Paul
I recognise you as one of the most famous well known lawyers in the USA
You may wish to consider that for obvious thing there is no to have « so called « international law
Customer law which is the most oldest and most referenced law could also be used as a proper reference
You and none of your supporter has a right I et the Persepolis Which is one of the well known capital of one of the most ancient civilisation Acamanech in greater Iran
No person is authorised to use the name in any level without the co sent of Iran
Whose who have recognised history understand that
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:28, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote:
Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation “sovereign rights” to place names … I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <tel:(202)%20738-1739>
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM To: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > Cc: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com> >; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”).
I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening.
Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration.
There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law.
Greg
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote:
Dear All
There is no primacy issue here.
It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected
There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them
If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage
You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights
We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended
Tks
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <tel:(202)%20738-1739>
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com> > Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com> > wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
Kind Regards
Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate
US Business Development
Mob +1 646 243 9857 <tel:+1%20646%20243%209857>
<image001.png>
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys
rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/>
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote:
Robin Gross <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> via icann.org <http://icann.org/>
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
<https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif>
<https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif>
<https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
<https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif>
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD
.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply
While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative
Regards
Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> > wrote:
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
_____
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
_______________________________________________ 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
_____
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Dear Paul, this is a comment to your message on {2017-11-30 10:28} only, and not to the whole thread and other messages from you: As a non-lawyer, and over a long period of time the single thing I have learnt for sure in this discussion on geographic denominations, is that the only single piece of international law that deals with SOME but not all of geographic denominations, was highjacked long ago in a treaty signed and/or discussed in Paris, summarized in one of its articles (6?), and that the rest of the treaty has nothing else to do with geographic denominations, but with trademarks. So, if we are goin to limit WT5 to that body of international law ONLY, and we are not looking for alternative, bottom up ways of defining certain geographic areas, that in some cases may go beyond political borders (i.r. top-down defined geographic boundaries, that in some cases neglect the cultural and linguistic overlaps over those border, just as the internet is meant to be) then I suggest we keep the AGB as is, with no further discussion. I can go into a new round with the existing, sadly top-down, but better than nothing "treatment"** of geo names. I wish you a nice weekend! Carlos Raul (**To date I still don't have a clear translated explanation of the word "treatment" either). But hey, we are a US based reprobation, so w better learn better english fast. El 2017-11-30 10:28, Paul Rosenzweig escribió:
Indeed, I would go further - there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation "sovereign rights" to place names ... I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
FROM: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] SENT: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM TO: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> CC: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the "primacy issue." The claim that "there is no primacy issue" is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means "there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments").
I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that's not happening.
Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other's views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration.
There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law.
Greg
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All
There is no primacy issue here.
It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected
There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them
If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage
You can support each other's as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights
We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended
Tks
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Greg Shatan SENT: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM TO: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> CC: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant's comments as "personal views" seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally "personal" as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of "Animal Farm," where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it's important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one's own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it's approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
KIND REGARDS
ASLAM G MOHAMED. ADVOCATE
US BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
MOB +1 646 243 9857 [1]
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys
RNAIP.COM [2]
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
ROBIN GROSS VIA [3] ICANN.ORG [4]
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
I didn't have audio on last night's WT5 call, so thought I'd send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
_Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an "approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to "put the cart before the horse", but this bracketed language does exactly that._
Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely _in line with draft _The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option _.There are_ _several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD_
_ ._
_Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group's mandate. Let's focus on defining what "geo-names" are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT_
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly "negative" analysis that won't consider "positives" as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community -- we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. _Reply_
_While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative_
_Regards_
Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week's call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
MARTIN SUTTON
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn't have audio on last night's WT5 call, so thought I'd send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an "approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to "put the cart before the horse", but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group's mandate. Let's focus on defining what "geo-names" are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly "negative" analysis that won't consider "positives" as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community -- we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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] tel:+1%20646%20243%209857 [2] http://rnaip.com/ [3] https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en [4] http://icann.org/
Dear Paul, I am split on this: I agree with you that “Governments” should not be able to make entire lists of strings ineligible for application as gTLD; as it for example happened with ISO 3166 Alpha-3 code elements and country names (think .est for Estonian eGovernment or .spain for the Spanish tourism authorities: not eligible for registration in 2012). But on the other hands the citizenry of a region, city or country has elected representatives to organize the state affairs; and The People must be able to rely on the ability of their representatives to protect national place names of interest. NOT because “the Government” wants to protect them out of some “reflex” – but because nobody ELSE than the Government would protect the citizenry from losing access to the name! In that respect: Surely we do not need to protect every hill or small stream. But we ought to make it convenient for Governments to know what is being applied for and give them SIMPLE tools to prevent abuse. Once we are leaving “rounds”: we can’t expect every Government to monitor incoming applications. But again: I am in agreement that Governments often tend to be overprotective; and we have to balance that! They sit at the table with us – we should listen to their feedback on our policy drafts. Thanks, Alexander Schubert From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 6:29 PM To: 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; 'Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: 'Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation “sovereign rights” to place names … I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM To: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > Cc: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com> >; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”). I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening. Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration. There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law. Greg On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear All There is no primacy issue here. It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote: Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com> > Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Robin; Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree. It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others. We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process. Greg On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com> > wrote: Dear Kavouss I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857 <tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/> On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Robin Gross <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> via icann.org <http://icann.org/> 6:48 PM (1 hour ago) <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> within the lines Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w. <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD . Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative Regards Kavouss On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > wrote: Hi Robin, Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call. Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> > wrote: I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT. While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Thanks, Robin _______________________________________________ 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 _____ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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
Alexander’s point seem fair to me that we have to strike a balance and I support it. Thanks Bram Sent from my iPhone On 3 Dec 2017, at 12:58 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Dear Paul, I am split on this: I agree with you that “Governments” should not be able to make entire lists of strings ineligible for application as gTLD; as it for example happened with ISO 3166 Alpha-3 code elements and country names (think .est for Estonian eGovernment or .spain for the Spanish tourism authorities: not eligible for registration in 2012). But on the other hands the citizenry of a region, city or country has elected representatives to organize the state affairs; and The People must be able to rely on the ability of their representatives to protect national place names of interest. NOT because “the Government” wants to protect them out of some “reflex” – but because nobody ELSE than the Government would protect the citizenry from losing access to the name! In that respect: Surely we do not need to protect every hill or small stream. But we ought to make it convenient for Governments to know what is being applied for and give them SIMPLE tools to prevent abuse. Once we are leaving “rounds”: we can’t expect every Government to monitor incoming applications. But again: I am in agreement that Governments often tend to be overprotective; and we have to balance that! They sit at the table with us – we should listen to their feedback on our policy drafts. Thanks, Alexander Schubert From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 6:29 PM To: 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; 'Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: 'Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Indeed, I would go further – there is no international law that I know of that gives a nation “sovereign rights” to place names … I invite you Kavouss to point me to any such expression in binding (or even advisory) international law. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:18 AM To: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”). I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening. Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration. There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law. Greg On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All There is no primacy issue here. It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Robin; Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree. It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others. We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process. Greg On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> wrote: Dear Kavouss I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857<tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> [cid:image001.png@01D2730D.4FCB7A70] RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com<http://rnaip.com/> On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Robin Gross via<https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> icann.org<http://icann.org/> 6:48 PM (1 hour ago) [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] within the lines Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w. [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD . Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative Regards Kavouss On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> wrote: Hi Robin, Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call. Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT. While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Thanks, Robin _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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 don’t understand the discussion. Identity, culture and economy ARE the essence of geo-names. CW
On 3 Dec 2017, at 06:44, Bram Fudzulani <beatblam@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Chirs, So do i believe. I think the the pure Government-political border fiction is just, a fiction. Carlos Gutierrez El 2017-12-03 15:14, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu escribió:
I don't understand the discussion. Identity, culture and economy ARE the essence of geo-names.
CW
On 3 Dec 2017, at 06:44, Bram Fudzulani <beatblam@hotmail.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear All Greg misinterpreted governments overt their legitimate as primacy It is a pity to hear that. There should be no such freedom to ignore the right of other under the concept of multistakeholder . Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:17, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”).
I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening.
Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration.
There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law.
Greg
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear All There is no primacy issue here. It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended Tks Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
Kind Regards
Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate
US Business Development
Mob +1 646 243 9857
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys
rnaip.com
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Robin Gross via icann.org
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD
.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply
While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative
Regards
Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
_______________________________________________ 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
What is the source of these rights Kavouss? What law or agreement creates them? Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 12:35 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Dear All Greg misinterpreted governments overt their legitimate as primacy It is a pity to hear that. There should be no such freedom to ignore the right of other under the concept of multistakeholder . Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:17, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > wrote: Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”). I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening. Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration. There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law. Greg On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear All There is no primacy issue here. It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote: Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com> > Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Robin; Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree. It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others. We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process. Greg On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com> > wrote: Dear Kavouss I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857 <tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/> On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Robin Gross <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> via icann.org <http://icann.org/> 6:48 PM (1 hour ago) <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> within the lines Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w. <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif> I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD . Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative Regards Kavouss On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > wrote: Hi Robin, Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call. Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> > wrote: I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT. While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Thanks, Robin _______________________________________________ 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 _____ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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
This link could possibly answer your query: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64077479/Heather%20Forrest%... Kind Regards Aslam Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Ph: +1 646 243 9857<tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> [https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPO/MessageImages/e8c178193df64...] RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys. rnaip.com<http://rnaip.com/> On 30 Nov 2017, at 13:14, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: What is the source of these rights Kavouss? What law or agreement creates them? Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 12:35 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Dear All Greg misinterpreted governments overt their legitimate as primacy It is a pity to hear that. There should be no such freedom to ignore the right of other under the concept of multistakeholder . Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:17, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”). I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening. Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration. There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law. Greg On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All There is no primacy issue here. It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Robin; Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree. It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others. We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process. Greg On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> wrote: Dear Kavouss I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857<tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> <image001.png> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com<http://rnaip.com/> On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Robin Gross via<https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> icann.org<http://icann.org/> 6:48 PM (1 hour ago) [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] within the lines Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w. [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD . Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative Regards Kavouss On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> wrote: Hi Robin, Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call. Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT. While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Thanks, Robin _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
Thank you Aslam for this paper. I’m starting to form a more educated opinion on the issue. Beyond treaty/conventional law, do you think there’s any customary international norm or binding consistent practice at all regarding names of States? Javier Rúa-Jovet ALAC +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Nov 30, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
This link could possibly answer your query:
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64077479/Heather%20Forrest%...
Kind Regards
Aslam Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Ph: +1 646 243 9857
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys. rnaip.com
On 30 Nov 2017, at 13:14, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
What is the source of these rights Kavouss? What law or agreement creates them?
Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
From: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 12:35 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Dear All Greg misinterpreted governments overt their legitimate as primacy It is a pity to hear that. There should be no such freedom to ignore the right of other under the concept of multistakeholder . Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:17, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the “primacy issue.” The claim that “there is no primacy issue” is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means “there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments”).
I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that’s not happening.
Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other’s views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration.
There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law.
Greg
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear All There is no primacy issue here. It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended Tks Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote: Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
Kind Regards
Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857
<image001.png>
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Robin Gross via icann.org
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
within the lines Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w.
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD . Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote: Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Hello Greg, i think that both, Robin and Kavouss have given a very restrictive definition of GeoNames. The similarities end there, but either one seems to come from a bottom-up multistakeholder approach. Carlos Raul Gutierrez El 2017-11-30 10:17, Greg Shatan escribió:
Kavouss has given us a succinct summary of one view of the "primacy issue." The claim that "there is no primacy issue" is in fact a key part of the primacy issue (since it really means "there is no issue if you acknowledge the primacy of governments").
I agree that we all need to express our views freely. However, I see no attacks or anything offensive in this thread. Claims of attacks or offensive behavior have a a chilling effect on the free expression of views. Furthermore, the free expression of differing views includes (by definition) criticisms of those views. A request to abstain from criticism is a request to refrain from dialogue. Clearly, that's not happening.
Of course, under the multistakeholder model, if enough of the members of this group support each other's views that becomes the consensus result of this WT and this WG. In the meantime those views need to be dealt with in substance, rather than being dismissed without consideration.
There are claims of legitimate rights on all sides of the issues here. We will need to weigh and analyze the basis of those claims and validity of those claims, and to determine how to balance the contradictions between various legitimate rights. Sovereignty is no trump card, especially when stacked against the rule of law.
Greg
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear All There is no primacy issue here. It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage You can support each other's as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended Tks Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Greg Shatan SENT: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM TO: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> CC: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant's comments as "personal views" seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally "personal" as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of "Animal Farm," where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it's important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one's own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it's approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
KIND REGARDS
ASLAM G MOHAMED. ADVOCATE
US BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
MOB +1 646 243 9857 [1]
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys
RNAIP.COM [2]
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
ROBIN GROSS VIA [3] ICANN.ORG [4]
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
I didn't have audio on last night's WT5 call, so thought I'd send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
_Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an "approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to "put the cart before the horse", but this bracketed language does exactly that._
Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely _in line with draft _The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option _.There are_ _several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD_
_ ._
_Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group's mandate. Let's focus on defining what "geo-names" are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT_
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly "negative" analysis that won't consider "positives" as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community -- we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. _Reply_
_While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative_
_Regards_
Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week's call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
MARTIN SUTTON
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn't have audio on last night's WT5 call, so thought I'd send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an "approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to "put the cart before the horse", but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group's mandate. Let's focus on defining what "geo-names" are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly "negative" analysis that won't consider "positives" as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community -- we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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] tel:+1%20646%20243%209857 [2] http://rnaip.com/ [3] https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en [4] http://icann.org/
Dear Kavouss, thank you for your top-down, Government only definition of GeoNames. I don't agree with it. Carlos Raul Gutierrez El 2017-11-30 09:54, Arasteh escribió:
Dear All There is no primacy issue here. It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage You can support each other's as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended Tks Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Greg Shatan SENT: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM TO: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> CC: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant's comments as "personal views" seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally "personal" as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of "Animal Farm," where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it's important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one's own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it's approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
KIND REGARDS
ASLAM G MOHAMED. ADVOCATE
US BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
MOB +1 646 243 9857 [1]
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys
RNAIP.COM [2]
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
ROBIN GROSS VIA [3] ICANN.ORG [4]
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
I didn't have audio on last night's WT5 call, so thought I'd send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
_Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an "approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to "put the cart before the horse", but this bracketed language does exactly that._
Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely _in line with draft _The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option _.There are_ _several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD_
_ ._
_Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group's mandate. Let's focus on defining what "geo-names" are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT_
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly "negative" analysis that won't consider "positives" as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community -- we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. _Reply_
_While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative_
_Regards_
Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week's call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
MARTIN SUTTON
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn't have audio on last night's WT5 call, so thought I'd send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an "approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to "put the cart before the horse", but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group's mandate. Let's focus on defining what "geo-names" are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly "negative" analysis that won't consider "positives" as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community -- we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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] tel:+1%20646%20243%209857 [2] http://rnaip.com/ [3] https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en [4] http://icann.org/
Dear Group, regarding the role of “governments”: People rely on their elected representatives to defend them from (for example) land grabs: e.g. city names, country names, or other geo based gTLDs. In this regard the “Government” doesn’t exercise some “control”: it protects the interests of its citizens! For the People (by the people). In that regard: I see a very POSITIVE role in Governments protecting namespaces from being cyber squatted. So thanks to the GAC: Keep fighting for The People. Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:55 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Dear All There is no primacy issue here. It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote: Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com> > Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Robin; Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree. It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others. We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process. Greg On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com <mailto:aslam@rnaip.com> > wrote: Dear Kavouss I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857 <tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/> On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Robin Gross <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> via icann.org <http://icann.org/> 6:48 PM (1 hour ago) within the lines Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w. I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD . Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative Regards Kavouss On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > wrote: Hi Robin, Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call. Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> > wrote: I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT. While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Thanks, Robin _______________________________________________ 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 _____ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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 Alexander, I think you have put the role of the Government in a very adequate frame in your last comments. When I look back and see how some private sector agents have handled and done business with their delegated 2-letter codes TLDs and the way the have mande profits form it, I can only hope that Governments remain on the table for the foreseeable future for all new GeoNames. Carlos Raul Gutierrez El 2017-12-02 16:03, Alexander Schubert escribió:
Dear Group,
regarding the role of "governments":
People rely on their elected representatives to defend them from (for example) land grabs: e.g. city names, country names, or other geo based gTLDs. In this regard the "Government" doesn't exercise some "control": it protects the interests of its citizens! For the People (by the people).
In that regard: I see a very POSITIVE role in Governments protecting namespaces from being cyber squatted.
So thanks to the GAC: Keep fighting for The People.
Alexander.berlin
FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Arasteh SENT: Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:55 PM TO: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> CC: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Dear All
There is no primacy issue here.
It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected
There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them
If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage
You can support each other's as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights
We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended
Tks
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Greg Shatan SENT: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM TO: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> CC: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant's comments as "personal views" seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally "personal" as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of "Animal Farm," where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it's important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one's own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it's approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
KIND REGARDS
ASLAM G MOHAMED. ADVOCATE
US BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
MOB +1 646 243 9857 [1]
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys
RNAIP.COM [2]
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
ROBIN GROSS VIA [3] ICANN.ORG [4]
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
I didn't have audio on last night's WT5 call, so thought I'd send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
_Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an "approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to "put the cart before the horse", but this bracketed language does exactly that._
Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely _in line with draft _The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option _.There are_ _several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD_
_ ._
_Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group's mandate. Let's focus on defining what "geo-names" are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT_
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly "negative" analysis that won't consider "positives" as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community -- we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. _Reply_
_While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative_
_Regards_
Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week's call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
MARTIN SUTTON
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn't have audio on last night's WT5 call, so thought I'd send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an "approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to "put the cart before the horse", but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group's mandate. Let's focus on defining what "geo-names" are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly "negative" analysis that won't consider "positives" as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community -- we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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] tel:+1%20646%20243%209857 [2] http://rnaip.com/ [3] https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en [4] http://icann.org/
On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Dear Group,
regarding the role of “governments”:
People rely on their elected representatives to defend them from (for example) land grabs: e.g. city names, country names, or other geo based gTLDs. In this regard the “Government” doesn’t exercise some “control”: it protects the interests of its citizens! For the People (by the people).
In that regard: I see a very POSITIVE role in Governments protecting namespaces from being cyber squatted.
So thanks to the GAC: Keep fighting for The People.
Alexander.berlin
Even for democratic countries the above sounds very optimistic to me. Governments don't always fight for their people they have their self interest and incentives, like many other entities and actors. Governments don't always get elected by their people. Even in democratic countries when you talk about the government you need to be very specific. Government is big. Are you talking about the elected representatives or just some administrative representatives who are appointed not elected? GAC does not gain any legitimacy over other actors just because they are "governments".
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Arasteh *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:55 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
*Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Dear All
There is no primacy issue here.
It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected
There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them
If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage
You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights
We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended
Tks
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchcons ulting.com> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM *To:* Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
*Kind Regards*
*Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate*
*US Business Development*
*Mob +1 646 243 9857 <+1%20646%20243%209857>*
*RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys *
*rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/> *
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Robin Gross via <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> icann.org
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
[image: Image removed by sender.]
[image: Image removed by sender.]
[image: Image removed by sender.] within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
[image: Image removed by sender.]
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
*Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.*
Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely *in line with draft *The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option *.There are* *several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD*
* .*
*Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT*
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. *Reply*
*While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative*
*Regards*
Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
*Martin Sutton*
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
_______________________________________________ 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 Team When relating to geo-Names we cannot avoid talking of Governments, because people in those areas are represented by their Governments, and the Governments appoints its own representatives in the GAC. So whether legitimately elected or appointed, the fact is that Geo-Names are also in the purview of governments. The role of governments then need to be clearly defined in our work, because they are critical if we need to move forward on this issue. Bonnie From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> Date: Monday, 04 December 2017 at 07:14 To: <alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: Dear Group, regarding the role of “governments”: People rely on their elected representatives to defend them from (for example) land grabs: e.g. city names, country names, or other geo based gTLDs. In this regard the “Government” doesn’t exercise some “control”: it protects the interests of its citizens! For the People (by the people). In that regard: I see a very POSITIVE role in Governments protecting namespaces from being cyber squatted. So thanks to the GAC: Keep fighting for The People. Alexander.berlin Even for democratic countries the above sounds very optimistic to me. Governments don't always fight for their people they have their self interest and incentives, like many other entities and actors. Governments don't always get elected by their people. Even in democratic countries when you talk about the government you need to be very specific. Government is big. Are you talking about the elected representatives or just some administrative representatives who are appointed not elected? GAC does not gain any legitimacy over other actors just because they are "governments". From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:55 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Dear All There is no primacy issue here. It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote: Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Robin; Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree. It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others. We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process. Greg On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote: Dear Kavouss I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857 RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Robin Gross via icann.org 6:48 PM (1 hour ago) within the lines Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w. I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD . Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative Regards Kavouss On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote: Hi Robin, Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call. Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote: I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT. While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Thanks, Robin _______________________________________________ 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 IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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
The role of governments here is that of one set of stakeholders among many. Governments don't get to be special stakeholders. The essence of the multistakeholder model, rooted in the private sector (broadly defined), is that the people get to speak directly -- without the intermediation of governments. When government representatives speak here, their pronouncements don't carry extra weight. The proposition has been put forth that when stakeholders speak, it is merely their own personal views. If this is true for any stakeholders, it must be true for all. Conversely, if it is not true for some stakeholders, it is not true for any. The latter is clearly the case -- it is not true. The multistakeholder model demands that each of us act in a representative capacity for the stakeholders in our particular community that do not participate directly. This is not the special province of governments. A fundamental truth of ICANN is that it is not and cannot be a "government-led" structure. It is not merely a multistakeholder structure -- it is an equally multistakeholder structure. I share Farzaneh's view that the utopian ideal of the government as nothing more than the representative of the people doesn't really hold true in reality. Governments represent their own interests, which (for self-preservation) need to intersect with the interests of whoever (or whatever) put them in power -- party supporters, big donors, the establishment, etc. That is not meant to invalidate governments -- just to caution against elevating them above other stakeholders in this process. This is *particularly* true with regard to the topic of strings with geographic meanings (a/k/a geographic names). These strings are not uniquely geographic; they have other meanings and applications. We can't elevate the geographic meaning/application above other meanings/applications -- for that very reason we cannot elevate governments above other stakeholders. Greg On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Bonnie B Mtengwa <bmtengwa@potraz.gov.zw> wrote:
Dear Team
When relating to geo-Names we cannot avoid talking of Governments, because people in those areas are represented by their Governments, and the Governments appoints its own representatives in the GAC.
So whether legitimately elected or appointed, the fact is that Geo-Names are also in the purview of governments.
The role of governments then need to be clearly defined in our work, because they are critical if we need to move forward on this issue.
Bonnie
*From: *farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday, 04 December 2017 at 07:14 *To: *<alexander@schubert.berlin>
*Cc: *Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Dear Group,
regarding the role of “governments”:
People rely on their elected representatives to defend them from (for example) land grabs: e.g. city names, country names, or other geo based gTLDs. In this regard the “Government” doesn’t exercise some “control”: it protects the interests of its citizens! For the People (by the people).
In that regard: I see a very POSITIVE role in Governments protecting namespaces from being cyber squatted.
So thanks to the GAC: Keep fighting for The People.
Alexander.berlin
Even for democratic countries the above sounds very optimistic to me. Governments don't always fight for their people they have their self interest and incentives, like many other entities and actors. Governments don't always get elected by their people. Even in democratic countries when you talk about the government you need to be very specific. Government is big. Are you talking about the elected representatives or just some administrative representatives who are appointed not elected? GAC does not gain any legitimacy over other actors just because they are "governments".
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Arasteh *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:55 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
*Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Dear All
There is no primacy issue here.
It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected
There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them
If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage
You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights
We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended
Tks
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@ redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM *To:* Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
*Kind Regards*
*Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate*
*US Business Development*
*Mob +1 646 243 9857 <+1%20646%20243%209857>*
*RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys *
*rnaip.com <http://rnaip.com/> *
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Robin Gross via <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> icann.org
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
[image: mage removed by sender.]
[image: mage removed by sender.]
[image: mage removed by sender.] within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
[image: mage removed by sender.]
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
*Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.*
Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely *in line with draft *The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option *.There are* *several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD*
* .*
*Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT*
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. *Reply*
*While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative*
*Regards*
Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
*Martin Sutton*
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
_______________________________________________ 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, could you clarfy this sentence about ICANN: "It Is not merely a multistakeholder structure -- it is an equally multistakeholder structure." How you consider it being "equaly" considering that in ICANN government representatives only have a limited advisory role to the board, no voting seat in the board like other stakeholders and a have only one non voting seat in nomcom for selecting half of the board? Thanks in advance Best Olga Enviado desde mi iPad
El 6 dic 2017, a las 1:20 a.m., Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> escribió:
The role of governments here is that of one set of stakeholders among many. Governments don't get to be special stakeholders. The essence of the multistakeholder model, rooted in the private sector (broadly defined), is that the people get to speak directly -- without the intermediation of governments.
When government representatives speak here, their pronouncements don't carry extra weight. The proposition has been put forth that when stakeholders speak, it is merely their own personal views. If this is true for any stakeholders, it must be true for all. Conversely, if it is not true for some stakeholders, it is not true for any.
The latter is clearly the case -- it is not true. The multistakeholder model demands that each of us act in a representative capacity for the stakeholders in our particular community that do not participate directly. This is not the special province of governments. A fundamental truth of ICANN is that it is not and cannot be a "government-led" structure. It is not merely a multistakeholder structure -- it is an equally multistakeholder structure.
I share Farzaneh's view that the utopian ideal of the government as nothing more than the representative of the people doesn't really hold true in reality. Governments represent their own interests, which (for self-preservation) need to intersect with the interests of whoever (or whatever) put them in power -- party supporters, big donors, the establishment, etc. That is not meant to invalidate governments -- just to caution against elevating them above other stakeholders in this process.
This is particularly true with regard to the topic of strings with geographic meanings (a/k/a geographic names). These strings are not uniquely geographic; they have other meanings and applications. We can't elevate the geographic meaning/application above other meanings/applications -- for that very reason we cannot elevate governments above other stakeholders.
Greg
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Bonnie B Mtengwa <bmtengwa@potraz.gov.zw> wrote: Dear Team
When relating to geo-Names we cannot avoid talking of Governments, because people in those areas are represented by their Governments, and the Governments appoints its own representatives in the GAC.
So whether legitimately elected or appointed, the fact is that Geo-Names are also in the purview of governments.
The role of governments then need to be clearly defined in our work, because they are critical if we need to move forward on this issue.
Bonnie
From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> Date: Monday, 04 December 2017 at 07:14 To: <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Dear Group,
regarding the role of “governments”:
People rely on their elected representatives to defend them from (for example) land grabs: e.g. city names, country names, or other geo based gTLDs. In this regard the “Government” doesn’t exercise some “control”: it protects the interests of its citizens! For the People (by the people).
In that regard: I see a very POSITIVE role in Governments protecting namespaces from being cyber squatted.
So thanks to the GAC: Keep fighting for The People.
Alexander.berlin
Even for democratic countries the above sounds very optimistic to me. Governments don't always fight for their people they have their self interest and incentives, like many other entities and actors. Governments don't always get elected by their people. Even in democratic countries when you talk about the government you need to be very specific. Government is big. Are you talking about the elected representatives or just some administrative representatives who are appointed not elected? GAC does not gain any legitimacy over other actors just because they are "governments".
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:55 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Dear All
There is no primacy issue here.
It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected
There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them
If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage
You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights
We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended
Tks
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
Kind Regards
Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate
US Business Development
Mob +1 646 243 9857
<image001.png>
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys
rnaip.com
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Robin Gross via icann.org
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
<image002.jpg>
<image002.jpg>
<image002.jpg> within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
<image002.jpg>
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD
.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply
While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative
Regards
Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
_______________________________________________ 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
Greg, Thanks for reminding us about the essence of the multistakeholder model. In some ways, it’s indicative of how international and transnational governance models have evolved from a Westphalian Sovereign-Nation-State centered exclusive club, then to a broader International Community of States, that then added entities as subjects of International Law: International Organizations like the UN, International Humanitarian NGOs like Red Cross and Red Crescent, Democratic Supranational Organizations of pooled sovereignty like the European Union, and then the unthinkable: individual persons as bearers of international rights and standing with the rise of regional and universal Human Rights protection regimes. As the relevance of the pure 19th century Nation-State model has progressively morphed, experiments like ICANN become possible: a corporation that although born in a subnational unit of a State, operates with participants and constituencies from all over the Planet (Sovereign States, non-sovereign territories -like my country Puerto Rico-, private commercial and non-commercial entities and interests, technical constituencies; all working in a mechanism that impacts the evolution of the Internet, within ICANN’s (very limited) DNS remit. It’s a governance model well suited for an ideally borderless and transnational phenomenon like the global interoperable Internet. Multistakeholder global entities like ICANN are quite a new experiment. For some -including myself- the concept that the opinion of one person is as valid as the opinion of a hundred or thousand year old Nation-State is sometimes hard to fathom. I think States naturally perceive multistakeholderism as a disruptive concept, a threat to their model (some States more than others; some up-front and others hypocritically). Multistakeholderism is a very fragile thing; on a cliff; almost a fiction. It can sometimes seem like pure process, mere ritual, and worse: before I began to understand a bit the true merit and added value of it, I though it was an elaborate farce. But It is my belief that multistakeholderism is something to be defended, protected, perfected and further entrenched in the way we do governance at all levels, whether global or local. It requires a lot of work, a lot of diplomacy, intelligence, maturity and patience. And I do admire States that accept multistakeholder “rules”, because they must continually show incredible levels of self-restraint in the face of the pure insolence of some people and entities. But the equation has been historically the opposite: individuals have had to withstand not only insolent, but also violent States - which in any case are run by either insolent or violent Individuals anyways (by the way, some States even have to resist and survive their own insolent leaders, like the current US President). But multistakeholderism, I believe, is a step in the right direction for humanity, that is consistent with the way global governance structures have been evolving, that I hope sticks and keeps on expanding, for it grants great legitimacy and strength to the norms that are consensually born through it. Javier Rúa-Jovet ALAC +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua El dic. 6, 2017, a la(s) 12:20 a. m., Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> escribió:
The role of governments here is that of one set of stakeholders among many. Governments don't get to be special stakeholders. The essence of the multistakeholder model, rooted in the private sector (broadly defined), is that the people get to speak directly -- without the intermediation of governments.
When government representatives speak here, their pronouncements don't carry extra weight. The proposition has been put forth that when stakeholders speak, it is merely their own personal views. If this is true for any stakeholders, it must be true for all. Conversely, if it is not true for some stakeholders, it is not true for any.
The latter is clearly the case -- it is not true. The multistakeholder model demands that each of us act in a representative capacity for the stakeholders in our particular community that do not participate directly. This is not the special province of governments. A fundamental truth of ICANN is that it is not and cannot be a "government-led" structure. It is not merely a multistakeholder structure -- it is an equally multistakeholder structure.
I share Farzaneh's view that the utopian ideal of the government as nothing more than the representative of the people doesn't really hold true in reality. Governments represent their own interests, which (for self-preservation) need to intersect with the interests of whoever (or whatever) put them in power -- party supporters, big donors, the establishment, etc. That is not meant to invalidate governments -- just to caution against elevating them above other stakeholders in this process.
This is particularly true with regard to the topic of strings with geographic meanings (a/k/a geographic names). These strings are not uniquely geographic; they have other meanings and applications. We can't elevate the geographic meaning/application above other meanings/applications -- for that very reason we cannot elevate governments above other stakeholders.
Greg
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Bonnie B Mtengwa <bmtengwa@potraz.gov.zw> wrote: Dear Team
When relating to geo-Names we cannot avoid talking of Governments, because people in those areas are represented by their Governments, and the Governments appoints its own representatives in the GAC.
So whether legitimately elected or appointed, the fact is that Geo-Names are also in the purview of governments.
The role of governments then need to be clearly defined in our work, because they are critical if we need to move forward on this issue.
Bonnie
From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> Date: Monday, 04 December 2017 at 07:14 To: <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Dear Group,
regarding the role of “governments”:
People rely on their elected representatives to defend them from (for example) land grabs: e.g. city names, country names, or other geo based gTLDs. In this regard the “Government” doesn’t exercise some “control”: it protects the interests of its citizens! For the People (by the people).
In that regard: I see a very POSITIVE role in Governments protecting namespaces from being cyber squatted.
So thanks to the GAC: Keep fighting for The People.
Alexander.berlin
Even for democratic countries the above sounds very optimistic to me. Governments don't always fight for their people they have their self interest and incentives, like many other entities and actors. Governments don't always get elected by their people. Even in democratic countries when you talk about the government you need to be very specific. Government is big. Are you talking about the elected representatives or just some administrative representatives who are appointed not elected? GAC does not gain any legitimacy over other actors just because they are "governments".
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:55 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Dear All
There is no primacy issue here.
It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected
There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them
If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage
You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights
We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended
Tks
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
Kind Regards
Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate
US Business Development
Mob +1 646 243 9857
<image001.png>
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys
rnaip.com
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Robin Gross via icann.org
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
<image002.jpg>
<image002.jpg>
<image002.jpg> within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
<image002.jpg>
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD
.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply
While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative
Regards
Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
_______________________________________________ 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
Hello All The only difficulty is multistakeholders do not possess a military or control the police. So in a world which progressively is adopting the Hammurabi Code over the values of libertè egalitè and fraternity, ICANN’s success will determine the future course the world will take. Hence the need for ICANN Board to stand firm on principles. ICANN61 will tell us if an eye for an eye will prevail or the ICANN Bylaws in geonames or in the WHOIS/GDPR conflicts. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate USA Business Development iP +1 646 243 9857<tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com<http://rnaip.com/> On Dec 6, 2017, at 12:57 AM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com<mailto:javrua@gmail.com>> wrote: Greg, Thanks for reminding us about the essence of the multistakeholder model. In some ways, it’s indicative of how international and transnational governance models have evolved from a Westphalian Sovereign-Nation-State centered exclusive club, then to a broader International Community of States, that then added entities as subjects of International Law: International Organizations like the UN, International Humanitarian NGOs like Red Cross and Red Crescent, Democratic Supranational Organizations of pooled sovereignty like the European Union, and then the unthinkable: individual persons as bearers of international rights and standing with the rise of regional and universal Human Rights protection regimes. As the relevance of the pure 19th century Nation-State model has progressively morphed, experiments like ICANN become possible: a corporation that although born in a subnational unit of a State, operates with participants and constituencies from all over the Planet (Sovereign States, non-sovereign territories -like my country Puerto Rico-, private commercial and non-commercial entities and interests, technical constituencies; all working in a mechanism that impacts the evolution of the Internet, within ICANN’s (very limited) DNS remit. It’s a governance model well suited for an ideally borderless and transnational phenomenon like the global interoperable Internet. Multistakeholder global entities like ICANN are quite a new experiment. For some -including myself- the concept that the opinion of one person is as valid as the opinion of a hundred or thousand year old Nation-State is sometimes hard to fathom. I think States naturally perceive multistakeholderism as a disruptive concept, a threat to their model (some States more than others; some up-front and others hypocritically). Multistakeholderism is a very fragile thing; on a cliff; almost a fiction. It can sometimes seem like pure process, mere ritual, and worse: before I began to understand a bit the true merit and added value of it, I though it was an elaborate farce. But It is my belief that multistakeholderism is something to be defended, protected, perfected and further entrenched in the way we do governance at all levels, whether global or local. It requires a lot of work, a lot of diplomacy, intelligence, maturity and patience. And I do admire States that accept multistakeholder “rules”, because they must continually show incredible levels of self-restraint in the face of the pure insolence of some people and entities. But the equation has been historically the opposite: individuals have had to withstand not only insolent, but also violent States - which in any case are run by either insolent or violent Individuals anyways (by the way, some States even have to resist and survive their own insolent leaders, like the current US President). But multistakeholderism, I believe, is a step in the right direction for humanity, that is consistent with the way global governance structures have been evolving, that I hope sticks and keeps on expanding, for it grants great legitimacy and strength to the norms that are consensually born through it. Javier Rúa-Jovet ALAC +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua El dic. 6, 2017, a la(s) 12:20 a. m., Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> escribió: The role of governments here is that of one set of stakeholders among many. Governments don't get to be special stakeholders. The essence of the multistakeholder model, rooted in the private sector (broadly defined), is that the people get to speak directly -- without the intermediation of governments. When government representatives speak here, their pronouncements don't carry extra weight. The proposition has been put forth that when stakeholders speak, it is merely their own personal views. If this is true for any stakeholders, it must be true for all. Conversely, if it is not true for some stakeholders, it is not true for any. The latter is clearly the case -- it is not true. The multistakeholder model demands that each of us act in a representative capacity for the stakeholders in our particular community that do not participate directly. This is not the special province of governments. A fundamental truth of ICANN is that it is not and cannot be a "government-led" structure. It is not merely a multistakeholder structure -- it is an equally multistakeholder structure. I share Farzaneh's view that the utopian ideal of the government as nothing more than the representative of the people doesn't really hold true in reality. Governments represent their own interests, which (for self-preservation) need to intersect with the interests of whoever (or whatever) put them in power -- party supporters, big donors, the establishment, etc. That is not meant to invalidate governments -- just to caution against elevating them above other stakeholders in this process. This is particularly true with regard to the topic of strings with geographic meanings (a/k/a geographic names). These strings are not uniquely geographic; they have other meanings and applications. We can't elevate the geographic meaning/application above other meanings/applications -- for that very reason we cannot elevate governments above other stakeholders. Greg On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Bonnie B Mtengwa <bmtengwa@potraz.gov.zw<mailto:bmtengwa@potraz.gov.zw>> wrote: Dear Team When relating to geo-Names we cannot avoid talking of Governments, because people in those areas are represented by their Governments, and the Governments appoints its own representatives in the GAC. So whether legitimately elected or appointed, the fact is that Geo-Names are also in the purview of governments. The role of governments then need to be clearly defined in our work, because they are critical if we need to move forward on this issue. Bonnie From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, 04 December 2017 at 07:14 To: <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Dear Group, regarding the role of “governments”: People rely on their elected representatives to defend them from (for example) land grabs: e.g. city names, country names, or other geo based gTLDs. In this regard the “Government” doesn’t exercise some “control”: it protects the interests of its citizens! For the People (by the people). In that regard: I see a very POSITIVE role in Governments protecting namespaces from being cyber squatted. So thanks to the GAC: Keep fighting for The People. Alexander.berlin Even for democratic countries the above sounds very optimistic to me. Governments don't always fight for their people they have their self interest and incentives, like many other entities and actors. Governments don't always get elected by their people. Even in democratic countries when you talk about the government you need to be very specific. Government is big. Are you talking about the elected representatives or just some administrative representatives who are appointed not elected? GAC does not gain any legitimacy over other actors just because they are "governments". From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:55 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Dear All There is no primacy issue here. It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Robin; Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree. It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others. We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process. Greg On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com<mailto:aslam@rnaip.com>> wrote: Dear Kavouss I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857<tel:+1%20646%20243%209857> <image001.png> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com<http://rnaip.com/> On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Robin Gross via<https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> icann.org<http://icann.org/> 6:48 PM (1 hour ago) <image002.jpg> <image002.jpg> <image002.jpg> within the lines Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w. <image002.jpg> I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD . Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative Regards Kavouss On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> wrote: Hi Robin, Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call. Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday. Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that. Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT. While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Thanks, Robin _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
Dear Greg I will reply to your aggressive tone and language That was used in yr message. The multistakeholder that you described is Your version of multistakehokder in which few peoplelike you wished and attempted to override and impose your views on millions of people who do not have the same possibility as you have from all angles The arrangements to address the geographic name in putting peoples of the world be faced with some fictive Majority of some GNSO overriding and dominating Those millions of people does not works It was imposed in the Jurisdiction but enough Is enough . Pls kindly stop attacking millions of people by referencing them to your So-called multistakeholder Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 6 Dec 2017, at 08:03, Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Hello All
The only difficulty is multistakeholders do not possess a military or control the police. So in a world which progressively is adopting the Hammurabi Code over the values of libertè egalitè and fraternity, ICANN’s success will determine the future course the world will take. Hence the need for ICANN Board to stand firm on principles. ICANN61 will tell us if an eye for an eye will prevail or the ICANN Bylaws in geonames or in the WHOIS/GDPR conflicts.
Kind Regards
Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate USA Business Development iP +1 646 243 9857
<image001.png> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com
On Dec 6, 2017, at 12:57 AM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
Greg,
Thanks for reminding us about the essence of the multistakeholder model.
In some ways, it’s indicative of how international and transnational governance models have evolved from a Westphalian Sovereign-Nation-State centered exclusive club, then to a broader International Community of States, that then added entities as subjects of International Law: International Organizations like the UN, International Humanitarian NGOs like Red Cross and Red Crescent, Democratic Supranational Organizations of pooled sovereignty like the European Union, and then the unthinkable: individual persons as bearers of international rights and standing with the rise of regional and universal Human Rights protection regimes. As the relevance of the pure 19th century Nation-State model has progressively morphed, experiments like ICANN become possible: a corporation that although born in a subnational unit of a State, operates with participants and constituencies from all over the Planet (Sovereign States, non-sovereign territories -like my country Puerto Rico-, private commercial and non-commercial entities and interests, technical constituencies; all working in a mechanism that impacts the evolution of the Internet, within ICANN’s (very limited) DNS remit. It’s a governance model well suited for an ideally borderless and transnational phenomenon like the global interoperable Internet.
Multistakeholder global entities like ICANN are quite a new experiment. For some -including myself- the concept that the opinion of one person is as valid as the opinion of a hundred or thousand year old Nation-State is sometimes hard to fathom. I think States naturally perceive multistakeholderism as a disruptive concept, a threat to their model (some States more than others; some up-front and others hypocritically).
Multistakeholderism is a very fragile thing; on a cliff; almost a fiction. It can sometimes seem like pure process, mere ritual, and worse: before I began to understand a bit the true merit and added value of it, I though it was an elaborate farce. But It is my belief that multistakeholderism is something to be defended, protected, perfected and further entrenched in the way we do governance at all levels, whether global or local. It requires a lot of work, a lot of diplomacy, intelligence, maturity and patience. And I do admire States that accept multistakeholder “rules”, because they must continually show incredible levels of self-restraint in the face of the pure insolence of some people and entities. But the equation has been historically the opposite: individuals have had to withstand not only insolent, but also violent States - which in any case are run by either insolent or violent Individuals anyways (by the way, some States even have to resist and survive their own insolent leaders, like the current US President). But multistakeholderism, I believe, is a step in the right direction for humanity, that is consistent with the way global governance structures have been evolving, that I hope sticks and keeps on expanding, for it grants great legitimacy and strength to the norms that are consensually born through it.
Javier Rúa-Jovet ALAC +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
El dic. 6, 2017, a la(s) 12:20 a. m., Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> escribió:
The role of governments here is that of one set of stakeholders among many. Governments don't get to be special stakeholders. The essence of the multistakeholder model, rooted in the private sector (broadly defined), is that the people get to speak directly -- without the intermediation of governments.
When government representatives speak here, their pronouncements don't carry extra weight. The proposition has been put forth that when stakeholders speak, it is merely their own personal views. If this is true for any stakeholders, it must be true for all. Conversely, if it is not true for some stakeholders, it is not true for any.
The latter is clearly the case -- it is not true. The multistakeholder model demands that each of us act in a representative capacity for the stakeholders in our particular community that do not participate directly. This is not the special province of governments. A fundamental truth of ICANN is that it is not and cannot be a "government-led" structure. It is not merely a multistakeholder structure -- it is an equally multistakeholder structure.
I share Farzaneh's view that the utopian ideal of the government as nothing more than the representative of the people doesn't really hold true in reality. Governments represent their own interests, which (for self-preservation) need to intersect with the interests of whoever (or whatever) put them in power -- party supporters, big donors, the establishment, etc. That is not meant to invalidate governments -- just to caution against elevating them above other stakeholders in this process.
This is particularly true with regard to the topic of strings with geographic meanings (a/k/a geographic names). These strings are not uniquely geographic; they have other meanings and applications. We can't elevate the geographic meaning/application above other meanings/applications -- for that very reason we cannot elevate governments above other stakeholders.
Greg
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Bonnie B Mtengwa <bmtengwa@potraz.gov.zw> wrote: Dear Team
When relating to geo-Names we cannot avoid talking of Governments, because people in those areas are represented by their Governments, and the Governments appoints its own representatives in the GAC.
So whether legitimately elected or appointed, the fact is that Geo-Names are also in the purview of governments.
The role of governments then need to be clearly defined in our work, because they are critical if we need to move forward on this issue.
Bonnie
From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> Date: Monday, 04 December 2017 at 07:14 To: <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Dear Group,
regarding the role of “governments”:
People rely on their elected representatives to defend them from (for example) land grabs: e.g. city names, country names, or other geo based gTLDs. In this regard the “Government” doesn’t exercise some “control”: it protects the interests of its citizens! For the People (by the people).
In that regard: I see a very POSITIVE role in Governments protecting namespaces from being cyber squatted.
So thanks to the GAC: Keep fighting for The People.
Alexander.berlin
Even for democratic countries the above sounds very optimistic to me. Governments don't always fight for their people they have their self interest and incentives, like many other entities and actors. Governments don't always get elected by their people. Even in democratic countries when you talk about the government you need to be very specific. Government is big. Are you talking about the elected representatives or just some administrative representatives who are appointed not elected? GAC does not gain any legitimacy over other actors just because they are "governments".
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:55 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Dear All
There is no primacy issue here.
It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected
There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them
If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage
You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights
We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended
Tks
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
Kind Regards
Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate
US Business Development
Mob +1 646 243 9857
<image001.png>
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys
rnaip.com
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Robin Gross via icann.org
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
<image002.jpg>
<image002.jpg>
<image002.jpg> within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
<image002.jpg>
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD
.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. Reply
While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative
Regards
Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.
_______________________________________________ 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
IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear All,Scope section of the TOR may include the following reference material to identify a Geographic Name/indicator a) A nation’s cartographic programme (e.g.For India its , Survey of India) is likely the most significant user and already invested a lot in determing geographic names/indicator,name of a country/region. b) To identify a geographic name in addition to the Geographical denominations in “section 2.2.1.4.1 in the AGB 2012 which also provides for a definition of what was considered “country & territory names”. i.e. both long-form and short-form along with subdivisions, names listed in ISO 3166-1” , following items should also be considered. i. Complete set of official topographic maps that cover the country at the largest scale available; ii. Complete sets of all other official maps and charts that cover all, or parts, of the country; iii. A collection of local and commercial maps (road, railroad, agricultural); iv. Old, out-of-date and/or historical maps and charts; v. Special books and other publications that contain lists of geographical names (postal guides, shipping guides, national and local gazetteers, railroad and bus timetables); vi. National, regional and commercial atlases and national encyclopedias; vii. Books on national or local geography, geology and history; viii. Books on geographical names and general toponymy; ix. Books and other kinds of publications that deal with various languages used in the country; x. Census data, in, for example, statistical yearbooks; xi. Other yearbooks and special publications, such as mountaineering guides, that are based on the use of geographical names for reference purposes. c) If the reference material that is not easily accessible in paper form can be located through the Internet. However, the quality of the sources of information consulted must be carefully considered. d) It is also to be noted that names of cultural and economic significance which are also geographic names or indicators,should also be considered in such a way that they appropriately reflect the culture and heritage of a region and country. e) Geographical Names as TLD (Top level domain), are sensitive to a Nation and country, should not be delegated without the approval of the respective Governments or public authority. Thanks,Harish Chowdhary,ISOC IETF FELLOWinSIG 2017 FELLOWwww.nixi.in | www.indiaig.in From: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>Sent: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:58:24 GMT+0530To: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Referenceand proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to includeother concepts as wellDear GregI will reply to your aggressive tone and language That was used in yr message. The multistakeholder that you described is Your version of multistakehokder in which few peoplelike you wished and attempted to override and impose your views on millions of people who do not have the same possibility as you have from all angles The arrangements to address the geographic name in putting peoples of the world be faced with some fictive Majority of some GNSO overriding and dominating Those millions of people does not works It was imposed in the Jurisdiction but enough Is enough . Pls kindly stop attacking millions of people by referencing them to your So-called multistakeholder Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 6 Dec 2017, at 08:03, Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote: Hello All The only difficulty is multistakeholders do not possess a military or control the police. So in a world which progressively is adopting the Hammurabi Code over the values of libertè egalitè and fraternity, ICANN’s success will determine the future course the world will take. Hence the need for ICANN Board to stand firm on principles. ICANN61 will tell us if an eye for an eye will prevail or the ICANN Bylaws in geonames or in the WHOIS/GDPR conflicts. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate USA Business Development iP +1 646 243 9857 <image001.png> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com On Dec 6, 2017, at 12:57 AM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote: Greg, Thanks for reminding us about the essence of the multistakeholder model. In some ways, it’s indicative of how international and transnational governance models have evolved from a Westphalian Sovereign-Nation-State centered exclusive club, then to a broader International Community of States, that then added entities as subjects of International Law: International Organizations like the UN, International Humanitarian NGOs like Red Cross and Red Crescent, Democratic Supranational Organizations of pooled sovereignty like the European Union, and then the unthinkable: individual persons as bearers of international rights and standing with the rise of regional and universal Human Rights protection regimes. As the relevance of the pure 19th century Nation-State model has progressively morphed, experiments like ICANN become possible: a corporation that although born in a subnational unit of a State, operates with participants and constituencies from all over the Planet (Sovereign States, non-sovereign territories -like my country Puerto Rico-, pr ivate commercial and non-commercial entities and interests, technical constituencies; all working in a mechanism that impacts the evolution of the Internet, within ICANN’s (very limited) DNS remit. It’s a governance model well suited for an ideally borderless and transnational phenomenon like the global interoperable Internet. Multistakeholder global entities like ICANN are quite a new experiment. For some -including myself- the concept that the opinion of one person is as valid as the opinion of a hundred or thousand year old Nation-State is sometimes hard to fathom. I think States naturally perceive multistakeholderism as a disruptive concept, a threat to their model (some States more than others; some up-front and others hypocritically). Multistakeholderism is a very fragile thing; on a cliff; almost a fiction. It can sometimes seem like pure process, mere ritual, and worse: before I began to understand a bit the true merit and added value of it, I though it was an elaborate farce. But It is my belief that multistakeholderism is something to be defended, protected, perfected and further entrenched in the way we do governance at all levels, whether global or local. It requires a lot of work, a lot of diplomacy, intelligence, maturity and patience. And I do admire States that accept multistakeholder “rules”, because they must continually show incredible levels of self-restraint in the face of the pure insolence of some people and entities. But the equation has been historically the opposite: individuals have had to withstand not only insolent, but also violent States - which in any case are run by either insolent or violent Individuals anyways (by the way, some States even have to resist and surv ive their own insolent leaders, like the current US President). But multistakeholderism, I believe, is a step in the right direction for humanity, that is consistent with the way global governance structures have been evolving, that I hope sticks and keeps on expanding, for it grants great legitimacy and strength to the norms that are consensually born through it. Javier Rúa-JovetALAC +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua ; El dic. 6, 2017, a la(s) 12:20 a. m., Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> escribió: The role of governments here is that of one set of stakeholders among many. Governments don't get to be special stakeholders. The essence of the multistakeholder model, rooted in the private sector (broadly defined), is that the people get to speak directly -- without the intermediation of governments. When government representatives speak here, their pronouncements don't carry extra weight. The proposition has been put forth that when stakeholders speak, it is merely their own personal views. If this is true for any stakeholders, it must be true for all. Conversely, if it is not true for some stakeholders, it is not true for any. The latter is clearly the case -- it is not true. The multistakeholder model demands that each of us act in a representative capacity for the stakeholders in our particular community that do not participate directly. This is not the special province of governments. A fundamental truth of ICANN is that it is not and cannot be a "government-led" structure. It is not merely a multistakeholder structure -- it is an equally multistakeholder structure. I share Farzaneh's view that the utopian ideal of the government as nothing more than the representative of the people doesn't really hold true in reality. Governments represent their own interests, which (for self-preservation) need to intersect with the interests of whoever (or whatever) put them in power -- party supporters, big donors, the establishment, etc. That is not meant to invalidate governments -- just to caution against elevating them above other stakeholders in this process. This is particularly true with regard to the topic of strings with geographic meanings (a/k/a geographic names). These strings are not uniquely geographic; they have other meanings and applications. We can't elevate the geographic meaning/application above other meanings/applications -- for that very reason we cannot elevate governments above other stakeholders. Greg On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Bonnie B Mtengwa <bmtengwa@potraz.gov.zw> wrote: Dear Team When relating to geo-Names we cannot avoid talking of Governments, because people in those areas are represented by their Governments, and the Governments appoints its own representatives in the GAC. So whether legitimately elected or appointed, the fact is that Geo-Names are also in the purview of governments. The role of governments then need to be clearly defined in our work, because they are critical if we need to move forward on this issue. Bonnie From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>Date: Monday, 04 December 2017 at 07:14To: <alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: Dear Group, regarding the role of “governments”:People rely on their elected representatives to defend them from (for example) land grabs: e.g. city names, country names, or other geo based gTLDs. In this regard the “Government” doesn’t exercise some “control”: it protects the interests of its citizens! For the People (by the people).In that regard: I see a very POSITIVE role in Governments protecting namespaces from being cyber squatted. So thanks to the GAC: Keep fighting for The People.Alexander.berlin Even for democratic countries the above sounds very optimistic to me. Governments don't always fight for their people they have their self interest and incentives, like many other entities and actors. Governments don't always get elected by their people. Even in democratic countries when you talk about the government you need to be very specific. Government is big. Are you talking about the elected representatives or just some administrative representatives who are appointed not elected? GAC does not gain any legitimacy over other actors just because they are "governments". From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of ArastehSent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:55 PMTo: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Dear All There is no primacy issue here. It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote: Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg ShatanSent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AMTo: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com>Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well Robin; Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree. It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others. We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process. Greg On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote: Dear Kavouss I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises. Kind Regards Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate US Business Development Mob +1 646 243 9857 <image001.png> RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys rnaip.com On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Robin Gross via icann.org 6:48 PM (1 hour ago) <image002.jpg> <image002.jpg> <image002.jpg> within the lines Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin to gnso-newgtld-w. <image002.jpg> I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.Reply This is your views, Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely in line with draft The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option .There are several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD . Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT Reply Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nu anced a bit further in light of the complexities.Reply While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative Regards Kavouss On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote: Hi Robin, Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call. Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote: I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis sh ould recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.Thanks,Robin_______________________________________________Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://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___________________... mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5___________________... mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 ; IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5___________________... mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [NIXI is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/nixiindia & Twitter: @inregistry ] This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Greg, I agree with you 100% that the role of Governments WITHIN the “multi-stakeholder” PDP approach is “one of many”. As Olga already pointed out: it is even an “unequal” one, as GAC’s rights are restricted. But I guess we are confusing cause and effect here: The CURRENT role of this WT 5 and the gNSO (if you want: the ICANN PDP process in general) and their proponents has to be clearly distinguished from the future role of custodians of “geographical names”. Look at it as the “separation of powers”: the separation of legislative and judicial! I am in TOTAL AGREEMENT that in the current legislative PDP process the GAC should have just one of many voices. But indeed it is NOT “GAC” that is (or should) be the frontrunner of proposing wide-ranging protections of geographical names – as it isn’t the countries that need to be protected: IT IS THEIR CITIZENS that want to be protected! So even if we would “gag” GAC in this WT5 (which of course we won’t): The outcome would be just the same: wide-ranging protections of geo-names to protect the affected Internet Users from harm! The Government’s protection role comes into play later: Once we are talking judicial actions. Once somebody applies for “.turkey” – but they try to promote drugs – not the great nation of Turkey! We need then custodians in place who have SIMPLE tools at hand to be warned and to be able to PROTECT geographical names FOR THEIR CITIZENS (not for “themselves”). And the most simple tool is: Requirement of a letter of non-objection! If somebody wants a gTLD for drug promotion and choses “.turkey”: GREAT! Go for it. But make it easy for the Turkish Government to exercise its custodian role – and weed that application out! So let’s please be cognizant of the separation of powers in the chain of events: A) PDP B) real life application phase During the PDP Governments will be one of many. Later during the application submission phase they will be the ONLY ones who are suited to guard The People’s geo identities. Unless of course we find another solution – which I am open for; but doubtful. Is this distinction halfway intelligent? Have I explained it in a way that people understand it? Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 6:21 AM To: Bonnie B Mtengwa <bmtengwa@potraz.gov.zw> Cc: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>; alexander@schubert.berlin; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well The role of governments here is that of one set of stakeholders among many. Governments don't get to be special stakeholders. The essence of the multistakeholder model, rooted in the private sector (broadly defined), is that the people get to speak directly -- without the intermediation of governments. When government representatives speak here, their pronouncements don't carry extra weight. The proposition has been put forth that when stakeholders speak, it is merely their own personal views. If this is true for any stakeholders, it must be true for all. Conversely, if it is not true for some stakeholders, it is not true for any. The latter is clearly the case -- it is not true. The multistakeholder model demands that each of us act in a representative capacity for the stakeholders in our particular community that do not participate directly. This is not the special province of governments. A fundamental truth of ICANN is that it is not and cannot be a "government-led" structure. It is not merely a multistakeholder structure -- it is an equally multistakeholder structure. I share Farzaneh's view that the utopian ideal of the government as nothing more than the representative of the people doesn't really hold true in reality. Governments represent their own interests, which (for self-preservation) need to intersect with the interests of whoever (or whatever) put them in power -- party supporters, big donors, the establishment, etc. That is not meant to invalidate governments -- just to caution against elevating them above other stakeholders in this process. This is particularly true with regard to the topic of strings with geographic meanings (a/k/a geographic names). These strings are not uniquely geographic; they have other meanings and applications. We can't elevate the geographic meaning/application above other meanings/applications -- for that very reason we cannot elevate governments above other stakeholders. Greg On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Bonnie B Mtengwa <bmtengwa@potraz.gov.zw <mailto:bmtengwa@potraz.gov.zw> > wrote: Dear Team When relating to geo-Names we cannot avoid talking of Governments, because people in those areas are represented by their Governments, and the Governments appoints its own representatives in the GAC. So whether legitimately elected or appointed, the fact is that Geo-Names are also in the purview of governments. The role of governments then need to be clearly defined in our work, because they are critical if we need to move forward on this issue. Bonnie From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, 04 December 2017 at 07:14 To: <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Thanks greg, Everyone is and should be considered on equal terms here. That is why we still consider multi stakeholder approach as important in all policy development procedures. Let’s not forget that each and everyone has their perspectives. We need to look at practical sense and ensure we don’t take this wG another 10 years before we deliberate on anything. We need to really find the middle grounds to move. From a GNSO perspective we have brought people from the different so/ac and it makes sense to this SG as well as to the WT but let us focus not only in one position and see merit in each other and have open minds to move things forward. I hate to say that some believe that what it comes to geonames instantly some take a track that says it is their property. We are here to enable those people who do not participate in the policies but represent interests of people around the world. It is not only a government thning it is everyones busoness as well as the person on the ground as civil society. So please let us try and show some real interests. I know the challenges coming from certain cctld but that does not say that the geonames will sort the issues out. We are all grown ups and understand the challenges …work forward to achieve the best interest of the internet and the people using it.
On Dec 7, 2017, at 19:52, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi Greg,
I agree with you 100% that the role of Governments WITHIN the “multi-stakeholder” PDP approach is “one of many”. As Olga already pointed out: it is even an “unequal” one, as GAC’s rights are restricted.
But I guess we are confusing cause and effect here: The CURRENT role of this WT 5 and the gNSO (if you want: the ICANN PDP process in general) and their proponents has to be clearly distinguished from the future role of custodians of “geographical names”. Look at it as the “separation of powers”: the separation of legislative and judicial! I am in TOTAL AGREEMENT that in the current legislative PDP process the GAC should have just one of many voices. But indeed it is NOT “GAC” that is (or should) be the frontrunner of proposing wide-ranging protections of geographical names – as it isn’t the countries that need to be protected: IT IS THEIR CITIZENS that want to be protected! So even if we would “gag” GAC in this WT5 (which of course we won’t): The outcome would be just the same: wide-ranging protections of geo-names to protect the affected Internet Users from harm!
The Government’s protection role comes into play later: Once we are talking judicial actions. Once somebody applies for “.turkey” – but they try to promote drugs – not the great nation of Turkey! We need then custodians in place who have SIMPLE tools at hand to be warned and to be able to PROTECT geographical names FOR THEIR CITIZENS (not for “themselves”). And the most simple tool is: Requirement of a letter of non-objection! If somebody wants a gTLD for drug promotion and choses “.turkey”: GREAT! Go for it. But make it easy for the Turkish Government to exercise its custodian role – and weed that application out!
So let’s please be cognizant of the separation of powers in the chain of events: A) PDP B) real life application phase
During the PDP Governments will be one of many. Later during the application submission phase they will be the ONLY ones who are suited to guard The People’s geo identities. Unless of course we find another solution – which I am open for; but doubtful.
Is this distinction halfway intelligent? Have I explained it in a way that people understand it?
Thanks,
Alexander.berlin
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 6:21 AM To: Bonnie B Mtengwa <bmtengwa@potraz.gov.zw <mailto:bmtengwa@potraz.gov.zw>> Cc: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>>; alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
The role of governments here is that of one set of stakeholders among many. Governments don't get to be special stakeholders. The essence of the multistakeholder model, rooted in the private sector (broadly defined), is that the people get to speak directly -- without the intermediation of governments.
When government representatives speak here, their pronouncements don't carry extra weight. The proposition has been put forth that when stakeholders speak, it is merely their own personal views. If this is true for any stakeholders, it must be true for all. Conversely, if it is not true for some stakeholders, it is not true for any.
The latter is clearly the case -- it is not true. The multistakeholder model demands that each of us act in a representative capacity for the stakeholders in our particular community that do not participate directly. This is not the special province of governments. A fundamental truth of ICANN is that it is not and cannot be a "government-led" structure. It is not merely a multistakeholder structure -- it is an equally multistakeholder structure.
I share Farzaneh's view that the utopian ideal of the government as nothing more than the representative of the people doesn't really hold true in reality. Governments represent their own interests, which (for self-preservation) need to intersect with the interests of whoever (or whatever) put them in power -- party supporters, big donors, the establishment, etc. That is not meant to invalidate governments -- just to caution against elevating them above other stakeholders in this process.
This is particularly true with regard to the topic of strings with geographic meanings (a/k/a geographic names). These strings are not uniquely geographic; they have other meanings and applications. We can't elevate the geographic meaning/application above other meanings/applications -- for that very reason we cannot elevate governments above other stakeholders.
Greg
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Bonnie B Mtengwa <bmtengwa@potraz.gov.zw <mailto:bmtengwa@potraz.gov.zw>> wrote:
Dear Team
When relating to geo-Names we cannot avoid talking of Governments, because people in those areas are represented by their Governments, and the Governments appoints its own representatives in the GAC. So whether legitimately elected or appointed, the fact is that Geo-Names are also in the purview of governments.
The role of governments then need to be clearly defined in our work, because they are critical if we need to move forward on this issue.
Bonnie
From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, 04 December 2017 at 07:14 To: <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>
Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
_______________________________________________ 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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
Yes Alexander, great point. Very useful distinctions. Thank you! Javier Rúa-Jovet ALAC +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua El dic. 7, 2017, a la(s) 12:01 p. m., Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> escribió:
Thanks greg,
Everyone is and should be considered on equal terms here. That is why we still consider multi stakeholder approach as important in all policy development procedures. Let’s not forget that each and everyone has their perspectives.
We need to look at practical sense and ensure we don’t take this wG another 10 years before we deliberate on anything. We need to really find the middle grounds to move. From a GNSO perspective we have brought people from the different so/ac and it makes sense to this SG as well as to the WT but let us focus not only in one position and see merit in each other and have open minds to move things forward. I hate to say that some believe that what it comes to geonames instantly some take a track that says it is their property. We are here to enable those people who do not participate in the policies but represent interests of people around the world. It is not only a government thning it is everyones busoness as well as the person on the ground as civil society. So please let us try and show some real interests. I know the challenges coming from certain cctld but that does not say that the geonames will sort the issues out.
We are all grown ups and understand the challenges …work forward to achieve the best interest of the internet and the people using it.
On Dec 7, 2017, at 19:52, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi Greg,
I agree with you 100% that the role of Governments WITHIN the “multi-stakeholder” PDP approach is “one of many”. As Olga already pointed out: it is even an “unequal” one, as GAC’s rights are restricted.
But I guess we are confusing cause and effect here: The CURRENT role of this WT 5 and the gNSO (if you want: the ICANN PDP process in general) and their proponents has to be clearly distinguished from the future role of custodians of “geographical names”. Look at it as the “separation of powers”: the separation of legislative and judicial! I am in TOTAL AGREEMENT that in the current legislative PDP process the GAC should have just one of many voices. But indeed it is NOT “GAC” that is (or should) be the frontrunner of proposing wide-ranging protections of geographical names – as it isn’t the countries that need to be protected: IT IS THEIR CITIZENS that want to be protected! So even if we would “gag” GAC in this WT5 (which of course we won’t): The outcome would be just the same: wide-ranging protections of geo-names to protect the affected Internet Users from harm!
The Government’s protection role comes into play later: Once we are talking judicial actions. Once somebody applies for “.turkey” – but they try to promote drugs – not the great nation of Turkey! We need then custodians in place who have SIMPLE tools at hand to be warned and to be able to PROTECT geographical names FOR THEIR CITIZENS (not for “themselves”). And the most simple tool is: Requirement of a letter of non-objection! If somebody wants a gTLD for drug promotion and choses “.turkey”: GREAT! Go for it. But make it easy for the Turkish Government to exercise its custodian role – and weed that application out!
So let’s please be cognizant of the separation of powers in the chain of events: A) PDP B) real life application phase
During the PDP Governments will be one of many. Later during the application submission phase they will be the ONLY ones who are suited to guard The People’s geo identities. Unless of course we find another solution – which I am open for; but doubtful.
Is this distinction halfway intelligent? Have I explained it in a way that people understand it?
Thanks,
Alexander.berlin
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 6:21 AM To: Bonnie B Mtengwa <bmtengwa@potraz.gov.zw> Cc: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>; alexander@schubert.berlin; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
The role of governments here is that of one set of stakeholders among many. Governments don't get to be special stakeholders. The essence of the multistakeholder model, rooted in the private sector (broadly defined), is that the people get to speak directly -- without the intermediation of governments.
When government representatives speak here, their pronouncements don't carry extra weight. The proposition has been put forth that when stakeholders speak, it is merely their own personal views. If this is true for any stakeholders, it must be true for all. Conversely, if it is not true for some stakeholders, it is not true for any.
The latter is clearly the case -- it is not true. The multistakeholder model demands that each of us act in a representative capacity for the stakeholders in our particular community that do not participate directly. This is not the special province of governments. A fundamental truth of ICANN is that it is not and cannot be a "government-led" structure. It is not merely a multistakeholder structure -- it is an equally multistakeholder structure.
I share Farzaneh's view that the utopian ideal of the government as nothing more than the representative of the people doesn't really hold true in reality. Governments represent their own interests, which (for self-preservation) need to intersect with the interests of whoever (or whatever) put them in power -- party supporters, big donors, the establishment, etc. That is not meant to invalidate governments -- just to caution against elevating them above other stakeholders in this process.
This is particularly true with regard to the topic of strings with geographic meanings (a/k/a geographic names). These strings are not uniquely geographic; they have other meanings and applications. We can't elevate the geographic meaning/application above other meanings/applications -- for that very reason we cannot elevate governments above other stakeholders.
Greg
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Bonnie B Mtengwa <bmtengwa@potraz.gov.zw> wrote: Dear Team
When relating to geo-Names we cannot avoid talking of Governments, because people in those areas are represented by their Governments, and the Governments appoints its own representatives in the GAC. So whether legitimately elected or appointed, the fact is that Geo-Names are also in the purview of governments.
The role of governments then need to be clearly defined in our work, because they are critical if we need to move forward on this issue.
Bonnie
From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> Date: Monday, 04 December 2017 at 07:14 To: <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/
<KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Have I explained it in a way that people understand it?
I understand it. CW
On 7 Dec 2017, at 16:52, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Hi Greg,
I agree with you 100% that the role of Governments WITHIN the “multi-stakeholder” PDP approach is “one of many”. As Olga already pointed out: it is even an “unequal” one, as GAC’s rights are restricted.
But I guess we are confusing cause and effect here: The CURRENT role of this WT 5 and the gNSO (if you want: the ICANN PDP process in general) and their proponents has to be clearly distinguished from the future role of custodians of “geographical names”. Look at it as the “separation of powers”: the separation of legislative and judicial! I am in TOTAL AGREEMENT that in the current legislative PDP process the GAC should have just one of many voices. But indeed it is NOT “GAC” that is (or should) be the frontrunner of proposing wide-ranging protections of geographical names – as it isn’t the countries that need to be protected: IT IS THEIR CITIZENS that want to be protected! So even if we would “gag” GAC in this WT5 (which of course we won’t): The outcome would be just the same: wide-ranging protections of geo-names to protect the affected Internet Users from harm!
The Government’s protection role comes into play later: Once we are talking judicial actions. Once somebody applies for “.turkey” – but they try to promote drugs – not the great nation of Turkey! We need then custodians in place who have SIMPLE tools at hand to be warned and to be able to PROTECT geographical names FOR THEIR CITIZENS (not for “themselves”). And the most simple tool is: Requirement of a letter of non-objection! If somebody wants a gTLD for drug promotion and choses “.turkey”: GREAT! Go for it. But make it easy for the Turkish Government to exercise its custodian role – and weed that application out!
So let’s please be cognizant of the separation of powers in the chain of events: A) PDP B) real life application phase
During the PDP Governments will be one of many. Later during the application submission phase they will be the ONLY ones who are suited to guard The People’s geo identities. Unless of course we find another solution – which I am open for; but doubtful.
Is this distinction halfway intelligent? Have I explained it in a way that people understand it?
Thanks,
Alexander.berlin
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 6:21 AM To: Bonnie B Mtengwa <bmtengwa@potraz.gov.zw <mailto:bmtengwa@potraz.gov.zw>> Cc: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>>; alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
The role of governments here is that of one set of stakeholders among many. Governments don't get to be special stakeholders. The essence of the multistakeholder model, rooted in the private sector (broadly defined), is that the people get to speak directly -- without the intermediation of governments.
When government representatives speak here, their pronouncements don't carry extra weight. The proposition has been put forth that when stakeholders speak, it is merely their own personal views. If this is true for any stakeholders, it must be true for all. Conversely, if it is not true for some stakeholders, it is not true for any.
The latter is clearly the case -- it is not true. The multistakeholder model demands that each of us act in a representative capacity for the stakeholders in our particular community that do not participate directly. This is not the special province of governments. A fundamental truth of ICANN is that it is not and cannot be a "government-led" structure. It is not merely a multistakeholder structure -- it is an equally multistakeholder structure.
I share Farzaneh's view that the utopian ideal of the government as nothing more than the representative of the people doesn't really hold true in reality. Governments represent their own interests, which (for self-preservation) need to intersect with the interests of whoever (or whatever) put them in power -- party supporters, big donors, the establishment, etc. That is not meant to invalidate governments -- just to caution against elevating them above other stakeholders in this process.
This is particularly true with regard to the topic of strings with geographic meanings (a/k/a geographic names). These strings are not uniquely geographic; they have other meanings and applications. We can't elevate the geographic meaning/application above other meanings/applications -- for that very reason we cannot elevate governments above other stakeholders.
Greg
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Bonnie B Mtengwa <bmtengwa@potraz.gov.zw <mailto:bmtengwa@potraz.gov.zw>> wrote:
Dear Team
When relating to geo-Names we cannot avoid talking of Governments, because people in those areas are represented by their Governments, and the Governments appoints its own representatives in the GAC. So whether legitimately elected or appointed, the fact is that Geo-Names are also in the purview of governments.
The role of governments then need to be clearly defined in our work, because they are critical if we need to move forward on this issue.
Bonnie
From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, 04 December 2017 at 07:14 To: <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>
Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
_______________________________________________ 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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
A question for Robin and Paul, isn't somewhere a logical inconsistency to accept governments as the sole top-down providers of geographical boundaries, excluding the cultural-linguistic human beings within or even worse across those borders, to turn around and say the GAC has to limit itself to multistakeholder rules? Not that I have a position about limiting ourselves to genomes only FOR THE TIME BEING AN THE PURPOSE OF THIS WT%. But I will have to think hard about this, because it is not clear at all to me: My definition of a borderless internet starts somewhere else. Carlos Raul Gutierrez El 2017-11-30 08:44, Paul Rosenzweig escribió:
Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Greg Shatan SENT: Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM TO: Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> CC: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well
Robin;
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant's comments as "personal views" seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally "personal" as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of "Animal Farm," where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Similarly, it's important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one's own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.
We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <aslam@rnaip.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it's approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.
KIND REGARDS
ASLAM G MOHAMED. ADVOCATE
US BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
MOB +1 646 243 9857 [1]
RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys
RNAIP.COM [2]
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
ROBIN GROSS VIA [3] ICANN.ORG [4]
6:48 PM (1 hour ago)
within the lines
Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin
to gnso-newgtld-w.
I didn't have audio on last night's WT5 call, so thought I'd send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
_Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an "approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to "put the cart before the horse", but this bracketed language does exactly that._
Reply
This is your views,
Views of many GAC MEMBER is entirely _in line with draft _The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC members opposed to the second option _.There are_ _several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD_
_ ._
_Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group's mandate. Let's focus on defining what "geo-names" are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT_
Reply
Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly "negative" analysis that won't consider "positives" as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community -- we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities. _Reply_
_While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative_
_Regards_
Kavouss
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week's call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
MARTIN SUTTON
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn't have audio on last night's WT5 call, so thought I'd send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an "approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to "put the cart before the horse", but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group's mandate. Let's focus on defining what "geo-names" are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly "negative" analysis that won't consider "positives" as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community -- we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA. _______________________________________________ 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] tel:+1%20646%20243%209857 [2] http://rnaip.com/ [3] https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en [4] http://icann.org/
Hi Martin, I have a silly technical question you may be able to help me. Is there a way to number the email in a thread? sometimes when you are in a different time zone and wake up, you may want to refer to an early substantial email but you find yourself technically behind 5 +1 emails, and you are afraid to loose your message. It is really threatening trying to say something to a long list of legalistic emails by prefect english speaking lawyers, if you can't at last make a direct personal comment. Some members are not scared of that, and I praise a few members for that, but other might your turn around and go for a cup of coffee and breakfast, instead of trying to make a point. Thanks Carlos Raul Gutierrez El 2017-11-29 12:56, Martin Sutton escribió:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week's call.
Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.
Kind regards,
Martin
MARTIN SUTTON Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn't have audio on last night's WT5 call, so thought I'd send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an "approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to "put the cart before the horse", but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group's mandate. Let's focus on defining what "geo-names" are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly "negative" analysis that won't consider "positives" as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community -- we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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 agree with Robin for Paragraph 1: "approval" model is not necessary and the discussion is not necessary neither. There's nothing wrong with existing model using GAC early warning / advises / no-objection letter. Paragraph 2: Fully agree with "cultural" and "economic" terms are outside of WT5 scope. On the other hand, brand name with cultural and economic significance can use its business power to have its local government to name/rename a place (i.e. industry park, founder's hometown) using the brand name. There're already examples in China. Best regards, Ching On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:48 AM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
-- Ching Chiao Founder & CEO Brandma Internet Group 中域国际集团 www.brandma.com +886.918.211372 || +86.135.2018.7032 || +1.908.4990050 Beijing . Chengdu . Hangzhou . Hong Kong . Shenzhen. Taipei
Mr. Ching I agree that we disagree fully! Actually we are at opposite ends of this discussion. My only hope for GeoNames is a small scale, non-for-profit opportunity for small communities outside or within political borders to get a chance to have their own identifier, in most cases because the ccTLD is not representative for them, or has been highjacked for other purposes, and in most cases it has happened without their own Governments consent. So I'd rather stay with the AGB as is, and focus our efforts in WT 1-4 Carlos Raul Gutierrez El 2017-11-30 03:45, 喬敬 escribió:
I agree with Robin for
Paragraph 1: "approval" model is not necessary and the discussion is not necessary neither. There's nothing wrong with existing model using GAC early warning / advises / no-objection letter.
Paragraph 2: Fully agree with "cultural" and "economic" terms are outside of WT5 scope. On the other hand, brand name with cultural and economic significance can use its business power to have its local government to name/rename a place (i.e. industry park, founder's hometown) using the brand name. There're already examples in China.
Best regards,
Ching
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:48 AM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I didn't have audio on last night's WT5 call, so thought I'd send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.
Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an "approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to "put the cart before the horse", but this bracketed language does exactly that.
Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group's mandate. Let's focus on defining what "geo-names" are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT.
While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly "negative" analysis that won't consider "positives" as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community -- we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [1]
--
Ching Chiao Founder & CEO Brandma Internet Group 中域国际集团 www.brandma.com [2]
+886.918.211372 || +86.135.2018.7032 || +1.908.4990050 Beijing . Chengdu . Hangzhou . Hong Kong . Shenzhen. Taipei
_______________________________________________ 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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [2] http://www.brandma.com
participants (22)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Alfredo Calderon -
Annebeth Lange -
Arasteh -
Aslam Mohamed -
Bonnie B Mtengwa -
Bram Fudzulani -
Carlos Raul Gutierrez -
Dave Kissoondoyal -
farzaneh badii -
Greg Shatan -
Harish Chowdhary -
Javier Rua -
Kan Kaili -
Kavouss Arasteh
-
Kris Seeburn -
lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu -
Martin Sutton -
Olga Cavalli -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Robin Gross -
喬敬