Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments
Dear WT5 Participants:
Further to the Wt5 meeting in San Juan on 14 March, this is just to recall the main points that I made during that discussion.
1. For the new gTLD PDP to move forward with a reasonable delay, we need a new geo-TLD policy now. It would not be a good idea to wait for, or to out-source to other external entities, although in due course, external contributions may become relevant.
2. I suggested that WT5 would save time by discontinuing discussion about ISO 3166. That is an international standard for codes and names representing countries and their subdivisions. As such, it is a well codified sub-set of the generality of geographical names. The bottom line is that within the scope of ISO 3166, ICANN is bound to respect the international standard.
3. It is also not advisable to pursue the idea that the 2012 Applicant Guide Book (AGB) definition of geo-names is a relevant ‘default’. That text failed to address several classes of names that are of significant interest to user communities, a lacunae which gave rise to several disagreements and delays last time around. That should be corrected for the next round, as unambiguously as possible, in the interests of transparency and predictability for the individual users in the locations concerned.
In that context, I regret that the WT5 Terms of Reference do not address those issues explicitly. They will now have to be addressed by WT5.
3. Geographical names are not Generic in the usual semantic or, indeed, ICANN sense. Nearly all of those names are specific to places, cultures, regions, communities and their local economies. The fact that GNSO has taken the lead in the PDP WT5, does not diminish in any way the specific characteristics of geo-names.
The approach to geographical names requires a tailored approach to the evaluation and implementation of such applications, to which I shall return in due course as the WT5 agenda evolves.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson
PS: Resending, because the original message was sent from a non-WT5 registered address. Apologies for any duplication.
Thanks Christopher. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:12 PM, "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Dear WT5 Participants:
Further to the Wt5 meeting in San Juan on 14 March, this is just to recall the main points that I made during that discussion.
1. For the new gTLD PDP to move forward with a reasonable delay, we need a new geo-TLD policy now. It would not be a good idea to wait for, or to out-source to other external entities, although in due course, external contributions may become relevant.
2. I suggested that WT5 would save time by discontinuing discussion about ISO 3166. That is an international standard for codes and names representing countries and their subdivisions. As such, it is a well codified sub-set of the generality of geographical names. The bottom line is that within the scope of ISO 3166, ICANN is bound to respect the international standard.
3. It is also not advisable to pursue the idea that the 2012 Applicant Guide Book (AGB) definition of geo-names is a relevant ‘default’. That text failed to address several classes of names that are of significant interest to user communities, a lacunae which gave rise to several disagreements and delays last time around. That should be corrected for the next round, as unambiguously as possible, in the interests of transparency and predictability for the individual users in the locations concerned.
In that context, I regret that the WT5 Terms of Reference do not address those issues explicitly. They will now have to be addressed by WT5.
3. Geographical names are not Generic in the usual semantic or, indeed, ICANN sense. Nearly all of those names are specific to places, cultures, regions, communities and their local economies. The fact that GNSO has taken the lead in the PDP WT5, does not diminish in any way the specific characteristics of geo-names.
The approach to geographical names requires a tailored approach to the evaluation and implementation of such applications, to which I shall return in due course as the WT5 agenda evolves.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson
PS: Resending, because the original message was sent from a non-WT5 registered address. Apologies for any duplication.
With regard to point 3 ("Geographical names are not Generic in the usual semantic or, indeed, ICANN sense. Nearly all of those names are specific to places, cultures, regions, communities and their local economies. The fact that GNSO has taken the lead in the PDP WT5, does not diminish in any way the specific characteristics of geo-names."): We should avoid getting drawn into a policy conflict disguised as a semantic argument. The term "generic" as used in "generic TLDs" has long since departed from any "semantic" meaning of generic. Even as far back as 2001, RFC 3071 recognized that "generic" was ambiguous when applied to gTLDs, whic could be "generic" as in "purpose neutral" or "unbranded and open for use in any way" or "generic" as in "purpose-specific" or "related to a particular genus of registrants." As a result of the 2012 New gTLD round, we now have hundreds of gTLDs that are .Brands. Brands are conceptually and semantically the opposite of generic. We have dozens of TLDs being used as "geo-names." We also have many that are "purpose specific" and many that are open to use by all without any type of "genus" implied or expressed. I'm sure there are other types and distinctions to be made, but ultimately these are all gTLDs. The same word or string can have multiple meanings. In numerous cases, the same string could be delegated and used as a generic, purpose-specific, .Brand or geo-name gTLD, depending on the applicant's plans. We need to be conservative with the idea that a string or word is inherently one thing or another. For instance, "tours" could be a .brand, a geo-name, a purpose-specific gTLD or even a purpose-neutral gTLD. The GNSO's role here is not one where it has "taken the lead" as a free-floating "fact" but one where it has that responsibility as a matter of ICANN policy. In that vein, this is not "PDP WT5"; this is a "work track" within a GNSO Policy Development Process Working Group. The GNSO is a task-based entity, with that task being to manage the process of developing the policy recommendations for gTLDs. Anyone can participate in that process. It is irrelevant whether they are a member of (or a stakeholder represented by) any GNSO Stakeholder Group or Constituency. That is not to say this is the only possible way in which ICANN could have been or could be constituted. Before there was a GNSO and a ccNSO, there was a DNSO, which "advise[d] the ICANN Board on policy issues relating to the domain name system (DNS) -- the system of names commonly used to identify Internet locations and resources." Some body could decide to re-imagine this structure yet -- reconsider what is a gTLD and what is a ccTLD (perhaps based on use and purpose than on the ISO 3166 two-letter list), and whether other categories should be recognized aside from these two. But this body is not that body. And this body has enough complexities and distractions to complicate and delay our work without getting into existential debates -- especially those that are firmly outside our remit. It might be interesting to establish an unchartered discussion group to have those existential debates. However, it is the farthest thing from interesting (not to mention, productive) to turn this Work Track into that discussion group. I strongly encourage us not to get drawn down that rabbit-hole, which is in fact a rabbit-warren with a multitude of holes. Greg On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Christopher.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 <(787)%20396-6511> twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:12 PM, "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu" < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Dear WT5 Participants:
Further to the Wt5 meeting in San Juan on 14 March, this is just to recall the main points that I made during that discussion.
1. For the new gTLD PDP to move forward with a reasonable delay, we need a new geo-TLD policy now. It would not be a good idea to wait for, or to out-source to other external entities, although in due course, external contributions may become relevant.
2. I suggested that WT5 would save time by discontinuing discussion about ISO 3166. That is an international standard for codes and names representing countries and their subdivisions. As such, it is a well codified sub-set of the generality of geographical names. The bottom line is that within the scope of ISO 3166, ICANN is bound to respect the international standard.
3. It is also not advisable to pursue the idea that the 2012 Applicant Guide Book (AGB) definition of geo-names is a relevant ‘default’. That text failed to address several classes of names that are of significant interest to user communities, a lacunae which gave rise to several disagreements and delays last time around. That should be corrected for the next round, as unambiguously as possible, in the interests of transparency and predictability for the individual users in the locations concerned.
In that context, I regret that the WT5 Terms of Reference do not address those issues explicitly. They will now have to be addressed by WT5.
3. Geographical names are not Generic in the usual semantic or, indeed, ICANN sense. Nearly all of those names are specific to places, cultures, regions, communities and their local economies.
The fact that GNSO has taken the lead in the PDP WT5, does not diminish in any way the specific characteristics of geo-names.
The approach to geographical names requires a tailored approach to the evaluation and implementation of such applications, to which I shall return in due course as the WT5 agenda evolves.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson
PS: Resending, because the original message was sent from a non-WT5 registered address. Apologies for any duplication.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Happy with your view on this dear Greg. Regards. Janvier Ngnoulaye 2018-03-26 6:54 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
With regard to point 3 ("Geographical names are not Generic in the usual semantic or, indeed, ICANN sense. Nearly all of those names are specific to places, cultures, regions, communities and their local economies. The fact that GNSO has taken the lead in the PDP WT5, does not diminish in any way the specific characteristics of geo-names."):
We should avoid getting drawn into a policy conflict disguised as a semantic argument. The term "generic" as used in "generic TLDs" has long since departed from any "semantic" meaning of generic. Even as far back as 2001, RFC 3071 recognized that "generic" was ambiguous when applied to gTLDs, whic could be "generic" as in "purpose neutral" or "unbranded and open for use in any way" or "generic" as in "purpose-specific" or "related to a particular genus of registrants." As a result of the 2012 New gTLD round, we now have hundreds of gTLDs that are .Brands. Brands are conceptually and semantically the opposite of generic. We have dozens of TLDs being used as "geo-names." We also have many that are "purpose specific" and many that are open to use by all without any type of "genus" implied or expressed. I'm sure there are other types and distinctions to be made, but ultimately these are all gTLDs.
The same word or string can have multiple meanings. In numerous cases, the same string could be delegated and used as a generic, purpose-specific, .Brand or geo-name gTLD, depending on the applicant's plans. We need to be conservative with the idea that a string or word is inherently one thing or another. For instance, "tours" could be a .brand, a geo-name, a purpose-specific gTLD or even a purpose-neutral gTLD.
The GNSO's role here is not one where it has "taken the lead" as a free-floating "fact" but one where it has that responsibility as a matter of ICANN policy. In that vein, this is not "PDP WT5"; this is a "work track" within a GNSO Policy Development Process Working Group. The GNSO is a task-based entity, with that task being to manage the process of developing the policy recommendations for gTLDs. Anyone can participate in that process. It is irrelevant whether they are a member of (or a stakeholder represented by) any GNSO Stakeholder Group or Constituency.
That is not to say this is the only possible way in which ICANN could have been or could be constituted. Before there was a GNSO and a ccNSO, there was a DNSO, which "advise[d] the ICANN Board on policy issues relating to the domain name system (DNS) -- the system of names commonly used to identify Internet locations and resources." Some body could decide to re-imagine this structure yet -- reconsider what is a gTLD and what is a ccTLD (perhaps based on use and purpose than on the ISO 3166 two-letter list), and whether other categories should be recognized aside from these two. But this body is not that body. And this body has enough complexities and distractions to complicate and delay our work without getting into existential debates -- especially those that are firmly outside our remit.
It might be interesting to establish an unchartered discussion group to have those existential debates. However, it is the farthest thing from interesting (not to mention, productive) to turn this Work Track into that discussion group. I strongly encourage us not to get drawn down that rabbit-hole, which is in fact a rabbit-warren with a multitude of holes.
Greg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Christopher.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 <(787)%20396-6511> twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:12 PM, "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu" < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Dear WT5 Participants:
Further to the Wt5 meeting in San Juan on 14 March, this is just to recall the main points that I made during that discussion.
1. For the new gTLD PDP to move forward with a reasonable delay, we need a new geo-TLD policy now. It would not be a good idea to wait for, or to out-source to other external entities, although in due course, external contributions may become relevant.
2. I suggested that WT5 would save time by discontinuing discussion about ISO 3166. That is an international standard for codes and names representing countries and their subdivisions. As such, it is a well codified sub-set of the generality of geographical names. The bottom line is that within the scope of ISO 3166, ICANN is bound to respect the international standard.
3. It is also not advisable to pursue the idea that the 2012 Applicant Guide Book (AGB) definition of geo-names is a relevant ‘default’. That text failed to address several classes of names that are of significant interest to user communities, a lacunae which gave rise to several disagreements and delays last time around. That should be corrected for the next round, as unambiguously as possible, in the interests of transparency and predictability for the individual users in the locations concerned.
In that context, I regret that the WT5 Terms of Reference do not address those issues explicitly. They will now have to be addressed by WT5.
3. Geographical names are not Generic in the usual semantic or, indeed, ICANN sense. Nearly all of those names are specific to places, cultures, regions, communities and their local economies.
The fact that GNSO has taken the lead in the PDP WT5, does not diminish in any way the specific characteristics of geo-names.
The approach to geographical names requires a tailored approach to the evaluation and implementation of such applications, to which I shall return in due course as the WT5 agenda evolves.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson
PS: Resending, because the original message was sent from a non-WT5 registered address. Apologies for any duplication.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear All I fully and wholeheartedly support the valid comments and suggestions made by Christopher Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Mar 2018, at 10:08, Janvier NGNOULAYE <jnoulaye@gmail.com> wrote:
Happy with your view on this dear Greg. Regards. Janvier Ngnoulaye
2018-03-26 6:54 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
With regard to point 3 ("Geographical names are not Generic in the usual semantic or, indeed, ICANN sense. Nearly all of those names are specific to places, cultures, regions, communities and their local economies. The fact that GNSO has taken the lead in the PDP WT5, does not diminish in any way the specific characteristics of geo-names."):
We should avoid getting drawn into a policy conflict disguised as a semantic argument. The term "generic" as used in "generic TLDs" has long since departed from any "semantic" meaning of generic. Even as far back as 2001, RFC 3071 recognized that "generic" was ambiguous when applied to gTLDs, whic could be "generic" as in "purpose neutral" or "unbranded and open for use in any way" or "generic" as in "purpose-specific" or "related to a particular genus of registrants." As a result of the 2012 New gTLD round, we now have hundreds of gTLDs that are .Brands. Brands are conceptually and semantically the opposite of generic. We have dozens of TLDs being used as "geo-names." We also have many that are "purpose specific" and many that are open to use by all without any type of "genus" implied or expressed. I'm sure there are other types and distinctions to be made, but ultimately these are all gTLDs.
The same word or string can have multiple meanings. In numerous cases, the same string could be delegated and used as a generic, purpose-specific, .Brand or geo-name gTLD, depending on the applicant's plans. We need to be conservative with the idea that a string or word is inherently one thing or another. For instance, "tours" could be a .brand, a geo-name, a purpose-specific gTLD or even a purpose-neutral gTLD.
The GNSO's role here is not one where it has "taken the lead" as a free-floating "fact" but one where it has that responsibility as a matter of ICANN policy. In that vein, this is not "PDP WT5"; this is a "work track" within a GNSO Policy Development Process Working Group. The GNSO is a task-based entity, with that task being to manage the process of developing the policy recommendations for gTLDs. Anyone can participate in that process. It is irrelevant whether they are a member of (or a stakeholder represented by) any GNSO Stakeholder Group or Constituency.
That is not to say this is the only possible way in which ICANN could have been or could be constituted. Before there was a GNSO and a ccNSO, there was a DNSO, which "advise[d] the ICANN Board on policy issues relating to the domain name system (DNS) -- the system of names commonly used to identify Internet locations and resources." Some body could decide to re-imagine this structure yet -- reconsider what is a gTLD and what is a ccTLD (perhaps based on use and purpose than on the ISO 3166 two-letter list), and whether other categories should be recognized aside from these two. But this body is not that body. And this body has enough complexities and distractions to complicate and delay our work without getting into existential debates -- especially those that are firmly outside our remit.
It might be interesting to establish an unchartered discussion group to have those existential debates. However, it is the farthest thing from interesting (not to mention, productive) to turn this Work Track into that discussion group. I strongly encourage us not to get drawn down that rabbit-hole, which is in fact a rabbit-warren with a multitude of holes.
Greg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks Christopher.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:12 PM, "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Dear WT5 Participants:
Further to the Wt5 meeting in San Juan on 14 March, this is just to recall the main points that I made during that discussion.
1. For the new gTLD PDP to move forward with a reasonable delay, we need a new geo-TLD policy now. It would not be a good idea to wait for, or to out-source to other external entities, although in due course, external contributions may become relevant.
2. I suggested that WT5 would save time by discontinuing discussion about ISO 3166. That is an international standard for codes and names representing countries and their subdivisions. As such, it is a well codified sub-set of the generality of geographical names. The bottom line is that within the scope of ISO 3166, ICANN is bound to respect the international standard.
3. It is also not advisable to pursue the idea that the 2012 Applicant Guide Book (AGB) definition of geo-names is a relevant ‘default’. That text failed to address several classes of names that are of significant interest to user communities, a lacunae which gave rise to several disagreements and delays last time around. That should be corrected for the next round, as unambiguously as possible, in the interests of transparency and predictability for the individual users in the locations concerned.
In that context, I regret that the WT5 Terms of Reference do not address those issues explicitly. They will now have to be addressed by WT5.
3. Geographical names are not Generic in the usual semantic or, indeed, ICANN sense. Nearly all of those names are specific to places, cultures, regions, communities and their local economies. The fact that GNSO has taken the lead in the PDP WT5, does not diminish in any way the specific characteristics of geo-names.
The approach to geographical names requires a tailored approach to the evaluation and implementation of such applications, to which I shall return in due course as the WT5 agenda evolves.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson
PS: Resending, because the original message was sent from a non-WT5 registered address. Apologies for any duplication.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-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
participants (5)
-
Arasteh -
Greg Shatan -
Janvier NGNOULAYE -
Javier Rua -
lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu