Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments
I would say that the ideas and concepts in RFC 3071 are still quite relevant. I'd prefer that others (and Christopher) consider their substance, rather than finding ways to dismiss them without responding to them. We have not been at this domain name thing for all that long, and there is relatively little that looks at the taxonomy of domain names in any comprehensive way. *Christopher, can you clarify what "relevant prior rights" you are referring to with regard to geographical names? Which laws and/or treaties are you referring to, and to which parts?* While I hope that "the question of multiple uses can be resolved," I expect that it will, indeed it must, become a driver of "the eventual policy for geographical names." It's an interesting way to turn history on its head and state that "all sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept within GNSO." It's really quite the opposite. Once upon a time, there was a DNSO and the DNSO was in charge of policy for all domain names. Then came a time when two-letter TLDs specifically designated for a particular country or autonomous territory derived from ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes (i.e., ccTLDs) were removed from the purview of the DNSO (which was renamed the GNSO) and placed in a new "supporting organization," the ccNSO. All else remained in the GNSO. As for whether there is an analogy with brands, I'll need to understand what "relevant prior rights" (i.e., laws and/or treaties) are being invoked in that analogy before I can respond. Even assuming *arguendo* that there is an analogy, the issue of rights to a string really only becomes relevant when more than one party is interested in it or claims an interest or right in it. Which brings us right back to "the question of multiple uses." Best regards, Greg . On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 3:16 AM, cw@christopherwilkinson.eu < cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Good morning:
Allow me to respond briefly to Greg Shatan's comments, which evidently reflect his long experience with these matters:
1.
I think that the reference to RFC 3071 <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3071.txt> is not particularly helpful at this stage. At that time, 17 years ago, John Klensin submitted this 'informational' text as 'reflexions' in his 'personal capacity'. In the interim, ICANN has taken several decisions which - for better or worse – depart from the advice of RFC 3071. We have move on. 2.
Granted that there are sometimes several meanings for certain words in English, and probably in other languages as well, but this fact does not justify ignoring relevant prior rights, not least for brands and geographical names. Bearing in mind that the latter have usually been present long before the former’s associated usage of the same same string.
In any event, ICANN would, as before, have to deal with potential conflicts between strings with more than one meaning, including several geographical names among themselves. Meanwhile, a significant proportion of geographical names do not experience multiple uses – even in English.
I am sure that the question of multiple uses can be resolved and need not become a 'driver' of the eventual policy for geographical names. 3.
Regarding GNSO and gTLDs, it is indeed instructive to learn that all sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept within GNSO.
For present purposes, so be it.
But in that case, I would also argue - by analogy with brands – that geographical names should benefit from protection in the interest of predictability and transparency for individual users, in the locations, economies and communities concerned.
Regards to you all
CW
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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Just a thought: Why don’t we just ensure country codes with ISO alpha 3 is retained for countries plain and simple. There are countries where even the alpha-2 are not within an independent hands. ICANN is still working trying to release them from certain people, but still no way out. So a proposal is all the ISO alpha 3 are allotted within bounds that these could be used as alternate to alpha 2 for countries. That could clear the air for government and so on. So ISO alpha 3 can still be under GNSO per say. We do not move them to cctld.Just a thought. Then we could look at brands etc., based on IP or a strong case where it geoname attached to a country language, or culture but without also destroying a model that would be on the onus of the party requesting such Domain. Since we are talking Geonames. I think Geo takes precedence over IP but we may need to establish a strict way of engaging this as it could backfire as well. My two cents. But still it’s a double sided cutting knife.
On Apr 2, 2018, at 08:35, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I would say that the ideas and concepts in RFC 3071 are still quite relevant. I'd prefer that others (and Christopher) consider their substance, rather than finding ways to dismiss them without responding to them. We have not been at this domain name thing for all that long, and there is relatively little that looks at the taxonomy of domain names in any comprehensive way.
Christopher, can you clarify what "relevant prior rights" you are referring to with regard to geographical names? Which laws and/or treaties are you referring to, and to which parts?
While I hope that "the question of multiple uses can be resolved," I expect that it will, indeed it must, become a driver of "the eventual policy for geographical names."
It's an interesting way to turn history on its head and state that "all sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept within GNSO." It's really quite the opposite. Once upon a time, there was a DNSO and the DNSO was in charge of policy for all domain names. Then came a time when two-letter TLDs specifically designated for a particular country or autonomous territory derived from ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes (i.e., ccTLDs) were removed from the purview of the DNSO (which was renamed the GNSO) and placed in a new "supporting organization," the ccNSO. All else remained in the GNSO.
As for whether there is an analogy with brands, I'll need to understand what "relevant prior rights" (i.e., laws and/or treaties) are being invoked in that analogy before I can respond. Even assuming arguendo that there is an analogy, the issue of rights to a string really only becomes relevant when more than one party is interested in it or claims an interest or right in it. Which brings us right back to "the question of multiple uses."
Best regards,
Greg .
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 3:16 AM, cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Good morning: Allow me to respond briefly to Greg Shatan's comments, which evidently reflect his long experience with these matters: I think that the reference to RFC 3071 <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3071.txt> is not particularly helpful at this stage. At that time, 17 years ago, John Klensin submitted this 'informational' text as 'reflexions' in his 'personal capacity'. In the interim, ICANN has taken several decisions which - for better or worse – depart from the advice of RFC 3071. We have move on. Granted that there are sometimes several meanings for certain words in English, and probably in other languages as well, but this fact does not justify ignoring relevant prior rights, not least for brands and geographical names. Bearing in mind that the latter have usually been present long before the former’s associated usage of the same same string.
In any event, ICANN would, as before, have to deal with potential conflicts between strings with more than one meaning, including several geographical names among themselves. Meanwhile, a significant proportion of geographical names do not experience multiple uses – even in English.
I am sure that the question of multiple uses can be resolved and need not become a 'driver' of the eventual policy for geographical names. Regarding GNSO and gTLDs, it is indeed instructive to learn that all sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept within GNSO.
For present purposes, so be it.
But in that case, I would also argue - by analogy with brands – that geographical names should benefit from protection in the interest of predictability and transparency for individual users, in the locations, economies and communities concerned. Regards to you all CW
2018-03-26 6:54 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:javrua@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks Christopher.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 <tel:(787)%20396-6511> twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua <https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua>
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:12 PM, "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto: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 <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/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
Sorry i missed something. I wonder whether we could improve DNS to distinguish between a brand, a country since the chances to move to RDS still stands. Then everyone could still see just like the IP register, does. That could take away the fights if we can distinguish them.
On Apr 2, 2018, at 11:48, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> wrote:
Just a thought:
Why don’t we just ensure country codes with ISO alpha 3 is retained for countries plain and simple. There are countries where even the alpha-2 are not within an independent hands. ICANN is still working trying to release them from certain people, but still no way out. So a proposal is all the ISO alpha 3 are allotted within bounds that these could be used as alternate to alpha 2 for countries. That could clear the air for government and so on. So ISO alpha 3 can still be under GNSO per say. We do not move them to cctld.Just a thought.
Then we could look at brands etc., based on IP or a strong case where it geoname attached to a country language, or culture but without also destroying a model that would be on the onus of the party requesting such Domain. Since we are talking Geonames. I think Geo takes precedence over IP but we may need to establish a strict way of engaging this as it could backfire as well.
My two cents. But still it’s a double sided cutting knife.
On Apr 2, 2018, at 08:35, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
I would say that the ideas and concepts in RFC 3071 are still quite relevant. I'd prefer that others (and Christopher) consider their substance, rather than finding ways to dismiss them without responding to them. We have not been at this domain name thing for all that long, and there is relatively little that looks at the taxonomy of domain names in any comprehensive way.
Christopher, can you clarify what "relevant prior rights" you are referring to with regard to geographical names? Which laws and/or treaties are you referring to, and to which parts?
While I hope that "the question of multiple uses can be resolved," I expect that it will, indeed it must, become a driver of "the eventual policy for geographical names."
It's an interesting way to turn history on its head and state that "all sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept within GNSO." It's really quite the opposite. Once upon a time, there was a DNSO and the DNSO was in charge of policy for all domain names. Then came a time when two-letter TLDs specifically designated for a particular country or autonomous territory derived from ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes (i.e., ccTLDs) were removed from the purview of the DNSO (which was renamed the GNSO) and placed in a new "supporting organization," the ccNSO. All else remained in the GNSO.
As for whether there is an analogy with brands, I'll need to understand what "relevant prior rights" (i.e., laws and/or treaties) are being invoked in that analogy before I can respond. Even assuming arguendo that there is an analogy, the issue of rights to a string really only becomes relevant when more than one party is interested in it or claims an interest or right in it. Which brings us right back to "the question of multiple uses."
Best regards,
Greg .
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 3:16 AM, cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Good morning: Allow me to respond briefly to Greg Shatan's comments, which evidently reflect his long experience with these matters: I think that the reference to RFC 3071 <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3071.txt> is not particularly helpful at this stage. At that time, 17 years ago, John Klensin submitted this 'informational' text as 'reflexions' in his 'personal capacity'. In the interim, ICANN has taken several decisions which - for better or worse – depart from the advice of RFC 3071. We have move on. Granted that there are sometimes several meanings for certain words in English, and probably in other languages as well, but this fact does not justify ignoring relevant prior rights, not least for brands and geographical names. Bearing in mind that the latter have usually been present long before the former’s associated usage of the same same string.
In any event, ICANN would, as before, have to deal with potential conflicts between strings with more than one meaning, including several geographical names among themselves. Meanwhile, a significant proportion of geographical names do not experience multiple uses – even in English.
I am sure that the question of multiple uses can be resolved and need not become a 'driver' of the eventual policy for geographical names. Regarding GNSO and gTLDs, it is indeed instructive to learn that all sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept within GNSO.
For present purposes, so be it.
But in that case, I would also argue - by analogy with brands – that geographical names should benefit from protection in the interest of predictability and transparency for individual users, in the locations, economies and communities concerned. Regards to you all CW
2018-03-26 6:54 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:javrua@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks Christopher.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 <tel:(787)%20396-6511> twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua <https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua>
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:12 PM, "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
<KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
Kris, What is your basis for thinking that Geonames takes precedence over IP? I’d like to understand that thought process, and see how broadly you think this “precedence” should be applied (and why). Thanks! Greg On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:49 AM Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> wrote:
Just a thought:
Why don’t we just ensure country codes with ISO alpha 3 is retained for countries plain and simple. There are countries where even the alpha-2 are not within an independent hands. ICANN is still working trying to release them from certain people, but still no way out. So a proposal is all the ISO alpha 3 are allotted within bounds that these could be used as alternate to alpha 2 for countries. That could clear the air for government and so on. So ISO alpha 3 can still be under GNSO per say. We do not move them to cctld.Just a thought.
Then we could look at brands etc., based on IP or a strong case where it geoname attached to a country language, or culture but without also destroying a model that would be on the onus of the party requesting such Domain. Since we are talking Geonames. I think Geo takes precedence over IP but we may need to establish a strict way of engaging this as it could backfire as well.
My two cents. But still it’s a double sided cutting knife.
On Apr 2, 2018, at 08:35, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I would say that the ideas and concepts in RFC 3071 are still quite relevant. I'd prefer that others (and Christopher) consider their substance, rather than finding ways to dismiss them without responding to them. We have not been at this domain name thing for all that long, and there is relatively little that looks at the taxonomy of domain names in any comprehensive way.
*Christopher, can you clarify what "relevant prior rights" you are referring to with regard to geographical names? Which laws and/or treaties are you referring to, and to which parts?*
While I hope that "the question of multiple uses can be resolved," I expect that it will, indeed it must, become a driver of "the eventual policy for geographical names."
It's an interesting way to turn history on its head and state that "all sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept within GNSO." It's really quite the opposite. Once upon a time, there was a DNSO and the DNSO was in charge of policy for all domain names. Then came a time when two-letter TLDs specifically designated for a particular country or autonomous territory derived from ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes (i.e., ccTLDs) were removed from the purview of the DNSO (which was renamed the GNSO) and placed in a new "supporting organization," the ccNSO. All else remained in the GNSO.
As for whether there is an analogy with brands, I'll need to understand what "relevant prior rights" (i.e., laws and/or treaties) are being invoked in that analogy before I can respond. Even assuming *arguendo* that there is an analogy, the issue of rights to a string really only becomes relevant when more than one party is interested in it or claims an interest or right in it. Which brings us right back to "the question of multiple uses."
Best regards,
Greg .
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 3:16 AM, cw@christopherwilkinson.eu < cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Good morning:
Allow me to respond briefly to Greg Shatan's comments, which evidently reflect his long experience with these matters:
1.
I think that the reference to RFC 3071 <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3071.txt> is not particularly helpful at this stage. At that time, 17 years ago, John Klensin submitted this 'informational' text as 'reflexions' in his 'personal capacity'. In the interim, ICANN has taken several decisions which - for better or worse – depart from the advice of RFC 3071. We have move on. 2.
Granted that there are sometimes several meanings for certain words in English, and probably in other languages as well, but this fact does not justify ignoring relevant prior rights, not least for brands and geographical names. Bearing in mind that the latter have usually been present long before the former’s associated usage of the same same string.
In any event, ICANN would, as before, have to deal with potential conflicts between strings with more than one meaning, including several geographical names among themselves. Meanwhile, a significant proportion of geographical names do not experience multiple uses – even in English.
I am sure that the question of multiple uses can be resolved and need not become a 'driver' of the eventual policy for geographical names. 3.
Regarding GNSO and gTLDs, it is indeed instructive to learn that all sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept within GNSO.
For present purposes, so be it.
But in that case, I would also argue - by analogy with brands – that geographical names should benefit from protection in the interest of predictability and transparency for individual users, in the locations, economies and communities concerned.
Regards to you all
CW
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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-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
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com
- www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
Hi Greg, I thank you for this question in fact. I do understand your concern and of course IP has its importance beyond any doubts in fact we deadlock in the middle as both are as important as the other. Let me put my facts down:- Firstly based on ICANN’s philosophy of trust which helped create many ccTLD across the world, the trouble is some ended in private hands and getting let’s say today in Mauritius a .mu costs you at least USD 100, the affordability is up more for businesses. It is long reaching for some if not many small businesses. So they give up and go for .com, .net etc., I remember even when i was with deloitte in Mauritius we decided to go for deloitte-mu.com <http://deloitte-mu.com/>. Many negotiations has been happening between the private entity and and govt and ICANN. But none has properly resulted in anything way out. I even proposed that the private entity still be there as the running entity and we make it more commercial but in support of the country and all but the govt has a say but as an observer and we adopt a model like new zealand for example to make it work. Still we deadlocked. Long story short the govt changed went for a .org finally. So this situation of alpha-3 could be a solution for many countries where the situation is not getting better, they could eventually move to alpha-3. It could be the solution for many countries. Now coming down to Geonames - the very word is geographic names. Actually here i might be in everyones interest that we find a solution like WTO-IP works they classify the IPs for example “Riesling” which we know are special grapes but also wine. But i also hold the Riesling name as a company which i registered with WTO-IP. I am not saying that Govt takes precedence but i would take again Mauritius as an example no one is allowed to for example use the word mauritius in their company officially until the Prime Minister’s office allows you to do so. And the full rights is under the PMO. I would tend to guess it is most likely same in many countries. If within the DNS we could classify country, trademarks etc., we could perhaps have a solution going forward. But we know the DNS does not fully work like that. I feel the need that their needs a evolution of the technology and the way we do things. Am sure their can be solutions it is just that we never thought we would come up to this situation. That is my thought process. A country name and something which is registered IP still have two connotations. One is a country name or locality which is also under a register for the government of any country for example we have a “London” in texas as we have a “London” in England. which one or who takes precedence here? And then an IP registered as well called London. The solutions could be simple as they could be sudomains like /london.us <http://london.us/> or london.uk <http://london.uk/> here having a “.London” may be a challenge but a logical thinking may not bring a solution as to who has the priority. But a change in DNS or RDS improvement may perhaps solve the status quo here. To be honest i would love to see a balance and a technical solution that would resolve issues like these. I believe wholeheartedly we need to find solutions i different ways as well than only fight it and come to nothing. I still feel after 10 years the community is grown and needs to stop looking at how things were done in the last decade but technically find solution that resolves everyone’s issues. Well, i do not propose a solution here per say but food thought. We will even on giving govt precedence we will end up in deadlocks like “amazon”
On Apr 2, 2018, at 21:32, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kris,
What is your basis for thinking that Geonames takes precedence over IP? I’d like to understand that thought process, and see how broadly you think this “precedence” should be applied (and why).
Thanks!
Greg
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:49 AM Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com>> wrote: Just a thought:
Why don’t we just ensure country codes with ISO alpha 3 is retained for countries plain and simple. There are countries where even the alpha-2 are not within an independent hands. ICANN is still working trying to release them from certain people, but still no way out. So a proposal is all the ISO alpha 3 are allotted within bounds that these could be used as alternate to alpha 2 for countries. That could clear the air for government and so on. So ISO alpha 3 can still be under GNSO per say. We do not move them to cctld.Just a thought.
Then we could look at brands etc., based on IP or a strong case where it geoname attached to a country language, or culture but without also destroying a model that would be on the onus of the party requesting such Domain. Since we are talking Geonames. I think Geo takes precedence over IP but we may need to establish a strict way of engaging this as it could backfire as well.
My two cents. But still it’s a double sided cutting knife.
On Apr 2, 2018, at 08:35, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
I would say that the ideas and concepts in RFC 3071 are still quite relevant. I'd prefer that others (and Christopher) consider their substance, rather than finding ways to dismiss them without responding to them. We have not been at this domain name thing for all that long, and there is relatively little that looks at the taxonomy of domain names in any comprehensive way.
Christopher, can you clarify what "relevant prior rights" you are referring to with regard to geographical names? Which laws and/or treaties are you referring to, and to which parts?
While I hope that "the question of multiple uses can be resolved," I expect that it will, indeed it must, become a driver of "the eventual policy for geographical names."
It's an interesting way to turn history on its head and state that "all sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept within GNSO." It's really quite the opposite. Once upon a time, there was a DNSO and the DNSO was in charge of policy for all domain names. Then came a time when two-letter TLDs specifically designated for a particular country or autonomous territory derived from ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes (i.e., ccTLDs) were removed from the purview of the DNSO (which was renamed the GNSO) and placed in a new "supporting organization," the ccNSO. All else remained in the GNSO.
As for whether there is an analogy with brands, I'll need to understand what "relevant prior rights" (i.e., laws and/or treaties) are being invoked in that analogy before I can respond. Even assuming arguendo that there is an analogy, the issue of rights to a string really only becomes relevant when more than one party is interested in it or claims an interest or right in it. Which brings us right back to "the question of multiple uses."
Best regards,
Greg .
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 3:16 AM, cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Good morning: Allow me to respond briefly to Greg Shatan's comments, which evidently reflect his long experience with these matters: I think that the reference to RFC 3071 <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3071.txt> is not particularly helpful at this stage. At that time, 17 years ago, John Klensin submitted this 'informational' text as 'reflexions' in his 'personal capacity'. In the interim, ICANN has taken several decisions which - for better or worse – depart from the advice of RFC 3071. We have move on. Granted that there are sometimes several meanings for certain words in English, and probably in other languages as well, but this fact does not justify ignoring relevant prior rights, not least for brands and geographical names. Bearing in mind that the latter have usually been present long before the former’s associated usage of the same same string.
In any event, ICANN would, as before, have to deal with potential conflicts between strings with more than one meaning, including several geographical names among themselves. Meanwhile, a significant proportion of geographical names do not experience multiple uses – even in English.
I am sure that the question of multiple uses can be resolved and need not become a 'driver' of the eventual policy for geographical names. Regarding GNSO and gTLDs, it is indeed instructive to learn that all sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept within GNSO.
For present purposes, so be it.
But in that case, I would also argue - by analogy with brands – that geographical names should benefit from protection in the interest of predictability and transparency for individual users, in the locations, economies and communities concerned. Regards to you all CW
2018-03-26 6:54 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:javrua@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks Christopher.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 <tel:(787)%20396-6511> twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua <https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua>
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:12 PM, "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto: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 <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 <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 <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
<KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
Dear Greg, Dear WT5 participants: I consider that a geographical name pertains primarily and in the first instance to the internet users (present and future) in the location concerned. This in the interests of transparency and predictability for individual users among those communities and economies. Regards CW
El 2 de abril de 2018 a las 19:32 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> escribió:
Kris,
What is your basis for thinking that Geonames takes precedence over IP? I’d like to understand that thought process, and see how broadly you think this “precedence” should be applied (and why).
Thanks!
Greg
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:49 AM Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com > wrote:
> > Just a thought:
Why don’t we just ensure country codes with ISO alpha 3 is retained for countries plain and simple. There are countries where even the alpha-2 are not within an independent hands. ICANN is still working trying to release them from certain people, but still no way out. So a proposal is all the ISO alpha 3 are allotted within bounds that these could be used as alternate to alpha 2 for countries. That could clear the air for government and so on. So ISO alpha 3 can still be under GNSO per say. We do not move them to cctld.Just a thought.
Then we could look at brands etc., based on IP or a strong case where it geoname attached to a country language, or culture but without also destroying a model that would be on the onus of the party requesting such Domain. Since we are talking Geonames. I think Geo takes precedence over IP but we may need to establish a strict way of engaging this as it could backfire as well.
My two cents. But still it’s a double sided cutting knife.
> > > On Apr 2, 2018, at 08:35, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com > wrote:
I would say that the ideas and concepts in RFC 3071 are still quite relevant. I'd prefer that others (and Christopher) consider their substance, rather than finding ways to dismiss them without responding to them. We have not been at this domain name thing for all that long, and there is relatively little that looks at the taxonomy of domain names in any comprehensive way.
Christopher, can you clarify what "relevant prior rights" you are referring to with regard to geographical names? Which laws and/or treaties are you referring to, and to which parts?
While I hope that "the question of multiple uses can be resolved," I expect that it will, indeed it must, become a driver of "the eventual policy for geographical names."
It's an interesting way to turn history on its head and state that "all sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept within GNSO." It's really quite the opposite. Once upon a time, there was a DNSO and the DNSO was in charge of policy for all domain names. Then came a time when two-letter TLDs specifically designated for a particular country or autonomous territory derived from ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes (i.e., ccTLDs) were removed from the purview of the DNSO (which was renamed the GNSO) and placed in a new "supporting organization," the ccNSO. All else remained in the GNSO.
As for whether there is an analogy with brands, I'll need to understand what "relevant prior rights" (i.e., laws and/or treaties) are being invoked in that analogy before I can respond. Even assuming arguendo that there is an analogy, the issue of rights to a string really only becomes relevant when more than one party is interested in it or claims an interest or right in it. Which brings us right back to "the question of multiple uses."
Best regards,
Greg .
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 3:16 AM, cw@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu > wrote:
> > > >
Good morning:
Allow me to respond briefly to Greg Shatan's comments, which evidently reflect his long experience with these matters: 1. I think that the reference to RFC 3071 https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3071.txt is not particularly helpful at this stage. At that time, 17 years ago, John Klensin submitted this 'informational' text as 'reflexions' in his 'personal capacity'. In the interim, ICANN has taken several decisions which - for better or worse – depart from the advice of RFC 3071. We have move on. 2. Granted that there are sometimes several meanings for certain words in English, and probably in other languages as well, but this fact does not justify ignoring relevant prior rights, not least for brands and geographical names. Bearing in mind that the latter have usually been present long before the former’s associated usage of the same same string.
In any event, ICANN would, as before, have to deal with potential conflicts between strings with more than one meaning, including several geographical names among themselves. Meanwhile, a significant proportion of geographical names do not experience multiple uses – even in English.
I am sure that the question of multiple uses can be resolved and need not become a 'driver' of the eventual policy for geographical names. 3. Regarding GNSO and gTLDs, it is indeed instructive to learn that all sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept within GNSO.
For present purposes, so be it.
But in that case, I would also argue - by analogy with brands – that geographical names should benefit from protection in the interest of predictability and transparency for individual users, in the locations, economies and communities concerned.
Regards to you all
CW
> > > > >
> > > > > >
2018-03-26 6:54 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu " <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto: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 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
> >
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com
* http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
> _______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
A string may be used as a brand, a geographical name, a generic term, a purpose-specific term and a surname, among other things. Whether it is “primarily” one of those things may or may not be a relevant or workable test or factor. And how one determines the primary use is open to debate. Declaring that if some patch of dirt or pool of water has been named X, that X is always “primarily” a geographical name, regardless of other uses and factors, is a conclusion, not a basis. Invoking “transparency and predictability” as a mantra doesn’t make it any more reasoned. I don’t think there’s a “transparency” issue here at all, but since we all support transparency (except, it appears, when it comes to who owns a domain name) it must be good, right? And why the “transparency and predictability” needs of the occupants of a tiny village trump the transparency and predictability of millions of consumers is still a mystery. It represents a dirt-based physical nationalism that is very much at odds with the border less reality and future of the Internet, though experiencing a disturbing resurgence at the moment in the U.S. and elsewhere. You can build a wall at the border or around a patch of dirt; that doesn’t mean that you put that same wall around every top level domaIn name that happens to be used as a geographical name somewhere. Greg On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 3:04 AM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Dear Greg, Dear WT5 participants:
I consider that a geographical name pertains primarily and in the first instance to the internet users (present and future) in the location concerned.
This in the interests of transparency and predictability for individual users among those communities and economies.
Regards
CW
El 2 de abril de 2018 a las 19:32 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> escribió:
Kris,
What is your basis for thinking that Geonames takes precedence over IP? I’d like to understand that thought process, and see how broadly you think this “precedence” should be applied (and why).
Thanks!
Greg
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:49 AM Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> wrote:
Just a thought:
Why don’t we just ensure country codes with ISO alpha 3 is retained for countries plain and simple. There are countries where even the alpha-2 are not within an independent hands. ICANN is still working trying to release them from certain people, but still no way out. So a proposal is all the ISO alpha 3 are allotted within bounds that these could be used as alternate to alpha 2 for countries. That could clear the air for government and so on. So ISO alpha 3 can still be under GNSO per say. We do not move them to cctld.Just a thought.
Then we could look at brands etc., based on IP or a strong case where it geoname attached to a country language, or culture but without also destroying a model that would be on the onus of the party requesting such Domain. Since we are talking Geonames. I think Geo takes precedence over IP but we may need to establish a strict way of engaging this as it could backfire as well.
My two cents. But still it’s a double sided cutting knife.
On Apr 2, 2018, at 08:35, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I would say that the ideas and concepts in RFC 3071 are still quite relevant. I'd prefer that others (and Christopher) consider their substance, rather than finding ways to dismiss them without responding to them. We have not been at this domain name thing for all that long, and there is relatively little that looks at the taxonomy of domain names in any comprehensive way.
*Christopher, can you clarify what "relevant prior rights" you are referring to with regard to geographical names? Which laws and/or treaties are you referring to, and to which parts?*
While I hope that "the question of multiple uses can be resolved," I expect that it will, indeed it must, become a driver of "the eventual policy for geographical names."
It's an interesting way to turn history on its head and state that "all sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept within GNSO." It's really quite the opposite. Once upon a time, there was a DNSO and the DNSO was in charge of policy for all domain names. Then came a time when two-letter TLDs specifically designated for a particular country or autonomous territory derived from ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes (i.e., ccTLDs) were removed from the purview of the DNSO (which was renamed the GNSO) and placed in a new "supporting organization," the ccNSO. All else remained in the GNSO.
As for whether there is an analogy with brands, I'll need to understand what "relevant prior rights" (i.e., laws and/or treaties) are being invoked in that analogy before I can respond. Even assuming *arguendo* that there is an analogy, the issue of rights to a string really only becomes relevant when more than one party is interested in it or claims an interest or right in it. Which brings us right back to "the question of multiple uses."
Best regards,
Greg .
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 3:16 AM, cw@christopherwilkinson.eu < cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Good morning:
Allow me to respond briefly to Greg Shatan's comments, which evidently reflect his long experience with these matters:
1.
I think that the reference to RFC 3071 <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3071.txt> is not particularly helpful at this stage. At that time, 17 years ago, John Klensin submitted this 'informational' text as 'reflexions' in his 'personal capacity'. In the interim, ICANN has taken several decisions which - for better or worse – depart from the advice of RFC 3071. We have move on. 2.
Granted that there are sometimes several meanings for certain words in English, and probably in other languages as well, but this fact does not justify ignoring relevant prior rights, not least for brands and geographical names. Bearing in mind that the latter have usually been present long before the former’s associated usage of the same same string.
In any event, ICANN would, as before, have to deal with potential conflicts between strings with more than one meaning, including several geographical names among themselves. Meanwhile, a significant proportion of geographical names do not experience multiple uses – even in English.
I am sure that the question of multiple uses can be resolved and need not become a 'driver' of the eventual policy for geographical names. 3.
Regarding GNSO and gTLDs, it is indeed instructive to learn that all sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept within GNSO.
For present purposes, so be it.
But in that case, I would also argue - by analogy with brands – that geographical names should benefit from protection in the interest of predictability and transparency for individual users, in the locations, economies and communities concerned.
Regards to you all
CW
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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-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/ "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Hi WT5, Greg makes a valid point here: Obviously a place like Qatar, London or Israel are relevant and important enough internationally as well as locally to be protected globally for the local residents. But then there are places that do not even HAVE “Internet”, no industry whatsoever and no recognition internationally not even nationally. A small hill for example. Or a small stream. The big question here is: how to distinguish? In the past we tried to apply ISO lists – with mixed success. But this is probably irrelevant for the names that have been banned in the 2012 round: ISO 3166 Alpha-3 and territory names. These are impacting enough to deserve extra protection by requiring a letter of non-objection by the Government! So we have TWO different problem clouds: 1. Names that have been unavailable in the 2012 round: ISO 3166 Alpha-3 and territory names! 2. Small, unknown, un-impacting geo-places (small mountain, small stream) around the world I think both need to be dealt with separately. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 3:41 PM To: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: cw@christopherwilkinson.eu; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments A string may be used as a brand, a geographical name, a generic term, a purpose-specific term and a surname, among other things. Whether it is “primarily” one of those things may or may not be a relevant or workable test or factor. And how one determines the primary use is open to debate. Declaring that if some patch of dirt or pool of water has been named X, that X is always “primarily” a geographical name, regardless of other uses and factors, is a conclusion, not a basis. Invoking “transparency and predictability” as a mantra doesn’t make it any more reasoned. I don’t think there’s a “transparency” issue here at all, but since we all support transparency (except, it appears, when it comes to who owns a domain name) it must be good, right? And why the “transparency and predictability” needs of the occupants of a tiny village trump the transparency and predictability of millions of consumers is still a mystery. It represents a dirt-based physical nationalism that is very much at odds with the border less reality and future of the Internet, though experiencing a disturbing resurgence at the moment in the U.S. and elsewhere. You can build a wall at the border or around a patch of dirt; that doesn’t mean that you put that same wall around every top level domaIn name that happens to be used as a geographical name somewhere. Greg On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 3:04 AM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> > wrote: Dear Greg, Dear WT5 participants: I consider that a geographical name pertains primarily and in the first instance to the internet users (present and future) in the location concerned. This in the interests of transparency and predictability for individual users among those communities and economies. Regards CW El 2 de abril de 2018 a las 19:32 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > escribió: Kris, What is your basis for thinking that Geonames takes precedence over IP? I’d like to understand that thought process, and see how broadly you think this “precedence” should be applied (and why). Thanks! Greg On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:49 AM Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> > wrote: Just a thought: Why don’t we just ensure country codes with ISO alpha 3 is retained for countries plain and simple. There are countries where even the alpha-2 are not within an independent hands. ICANN is still working trying to release them from certain people, but still no way out. So a proposal is all the ISO alpha 3 are allotted within bounds that these could be used as alternate to alpha 2 for countries. That could clear the air for government and so on. So ISO alpha 3 can still be under GNSO per say. We do not move them to cctld.Just a thought. Then we could look at brands etc., based on IP or a strong case where it geoname attached to a country language, or culture but without also destroying a model that would be on the onus of the party requesting such Domain. Since we are talking Geonames. I think Geo takes precedence over IP but we may need to establish a strict way of engaging this as it could backfire as well. My two cents. But still it’s a double sided cutting knife. On Apr 2, 2018, at 08:35, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > wrote: I would say that the ideas and concepts in RFC 3071 are still quite relevant. I'd prefer that others (and Christopher) consider their substance, rather than finding ways to dismiss them without responding to them. We have not been at this domain name thing for all that long, and there is relatively little that looks at the taxonomy of domain names in any comprehensive way. Christopher, can you clarify what "relevant prior rights" you are referring to with regard to geographical names? Which laws and/or treaties are you referring to, and to which parts? While I hope that "the question of multiple uses can be resolved," I expect that it will, indeed it must, become a driver of "the eventual policy for geographical names." It's an interesting way to turn history on its head and state that "all sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept within GNSO." It's really quite the opposite. Once upon a time, there was a DNSO and the DNSO was in charge of policy for all domain names. Then came a time when two-letter TLDs specifically designated for a particular country or autonomous territory derived from ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes (i.e., ccTLDs) were removed from the purview of the DNSO (which was renamed the GNSO) and placed in a new "supporting organization," the ccNSO. All else remained in the GNSO. As for whether there is an analogy with brands, I'll need to understand what "relevant prior rights" (i.e., laws and/or treaties) are being invoked in that analogy before I can respond. Even assuming arguendo that there is an analogy, the issue of rights to a string really only becomes relevant when more than one party is interested in it or claims an interest or right in it. Which brings us right back to "the question of multiple uses." Best regards, Greg .
Hello I support Cristopher's points The separation between generic and country code TLDs is not the question of semantics - it is about policy ie who is in control of how the TLD is operated whether it is local internet community or international community (ICANN). So from that point of view anything that stands for and represents country names must be in control of these local communities. That in general goes for geo-names as well - in my view interests of local internet community should override the corporate interests. But as the geo-names were already released under GNSO policy we should work around that to try to find a solution that works for internet communities and if no claim is made for corporate or international/generic interests. Thank you, Timo Võhmar Estonian Internet On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi WT5,
Greg makes a valid point here: Obviously a place like Qatar, London or Israel are relevant and important enough internationally as well as locally to be protected globally for the local residents. But then there are places that do not even HAVE “Internet”, no industry whatsoever and no recognition internationally not even nationally. A small hill for example. Or a small stream.
The big question here is: how to distinguish? In the past we tried to apply ISO lists – with mixed success.
But this is probably irrelevant for the names that have been banned in the 2012 round: ISO 3166 Alpha-3 and territory names. These are impacting enough to deserve extra protection by requiring a letter of non-objection by the Government!
So we have TWO different problem clouds:
1. Names that have been unavailable in the 2012 round: ISO 3166 Alpha-3 and territory names!
2. Small, unknown, un-impacting geo-places (small mountain, small stream) around the world
I think both need to be dealt with separately.
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Wednesday, April 04, 2018 3:41 PM *To:* lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> *Cc:* cw@christopherwilkinson.eu; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments
A string may be used as a brand, a geographical name, a generic term, a purpose-specific term and a surname, among other things.
Whether it is “primarily” one of those things may or may not be a relevant or workable test or factor. And how one determines the primary use is open to debate. Declaring that if some patch of dirt or pool of water has been named X, that X is always “primarily” a geographical name, regardless of other uses and factors, is a conclusion, not a basis.
Invoking “transparency and predictability” as a mantra doesn’t make it any more reasoned. I don’t think there’s a “transparency” issue here at all, but since we all support transparency (except, it appears, when it comes to who owns a domain name) it must be good, right? And why the “transparency and predictability” needs of the occupants of a tiny village trump the transparency and predictability of millions of consumers is still a mystery. It represents a dirt-based physical nationalism that is very much at odds with the border less reality and future of the Internet, though experiencing a disturbing resurgence at the moment in the U.S. and elsewhere. You can build a wall at the border or around a patch of dirt; that doesn’t mean that you put that same wall around every top level domaIn name that happens to be used as a geographical name somewhere.
Greg
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 3:04 AM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Dear Greg, Dear WT5 participants:
I consider that a geographical name pertains primarily and in the first instance to the internet users (present and future) in the location concerned.
This in the interests of transparency and predictability for individual users among those communities and economies.
Regards
CW
El 2 de abril de 2018 a las 19:32 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> escribió:
Kris,
What is your basis for thinking that Geonames takes precedence over IP? I’d like to understand that thought process, and see how broadly you think this “precedence” should be applied (and why).
Thanks!
Greg
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:49 AM Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> wrote:
Just a thought:
Why don’t we just ensure country codes with ISO alpha 3 is retained for countries plain and simple. There are countries where even the alpha-2 are not within an independent hands. ICANN is still working trying to release them from certain people, but still no way out. So a proposal is all the ISO alpha 3 are allotted within bounds that these could be used as alternate to alpha 2 for countries. That could clear the air for government and so on. So ISO alpha 3 can still be under GNSO per say. We do not move them to cctld.Just a thought.
Then we could look at brands etc., based on IP or a strong case where it geoname attached to a country language, or culture but without also destroying a model that would be on the onus of the party requesting such Domain. Since we are talking Geonames. I think Geo takes precedence over IP but we may need to establish a strict way of engaging this as it could backfire as well.
My two cents. But still it’s a double sided cutting knife.
On Apr 2, 2018, at 08:35, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I would say that the ideas and concepts in RFC 3071 are still quite relevant. I'd prefer that others (and Christopher) consider their substance, rather than finding ways to dismiss them without responding to them. We have not been at this domain name thing for all that long, and there is relatively little that looks at the taxonomy of domain names in any comprehensive way.
*Christopher, can you clarify what "relevant prior rights" you are referring to with regard to geographical names? Which laws and/or treaties are you referring to, and to which parts?*
While I hope that "the question of multiple uses can be resolved," I expect that it will, indeed it must, become a driver of "the eventual policy for geographical names."
It's an interesting way to turn history on its head and state that "all sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept within GNSO." It's really quite the opposite. Once upon a time, there was a DNSO and the DNSO was in charge of policy for all domain names. Then came a time when two-letter TLDs specifically designated for a particular country or autonomous territory derived from ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes (i.e., ccTLDs) were removed from the purview of the DNSO (which was renamed the GNSO) and placed in a new "supporting organization," the ccNSO. All else remained in the GNSO.
As for whether there is an analogy with brands, I'll need to understand what "relevant prior rights" (i.e., laws and/or treaties) are being invoked in that analogy before I can respond. Even assuming *arguendo* that there is an analogy, the issue of rights to a string really only becomes relevant when more than one party is interested in it or claims an interest or right in it. Which brings us right back to "the question of multiple uses."
Best regards,
Greg
.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Hi Timo, Just for clarification: So you think a .city should be a ccTLD as well? A .state (e.g. .florida) as well? Why don’t we simply dissolve the ccNSO and end the artificial separation between ccTLDs and gTLDs – and just have ONE class of TLDs? Would make it MUCH easier! It seems you are calling for that, right? Dissolving the ccNSO? How can the harmonization of ccTLDs and gTLDs be applied for at ICANN? What would be the steps? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Timo Võhmar Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 5:12 PM To: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments Hello I support Cristopher's points The separation between generic and country code TLDs is not the question of semantics - it is about policy ie who is in control of how the TLD is operated whether it is local internet community or international community (ICANN). So from that point of view anything that stands for and represents country names must be in control of these local communities. That in general goes for geo-names as well - in my view interests of local internet community should override the corporate interests. But as the geo-names were already released under GNSO policy we should work around that to try to find a solution that works for internet communities and if no claim is made for corporate or international/generic interests. Thank you, Timo Võhmar Estonian Internet On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Hi WT5, Greg makes a valid point here: Obviously a place like Qatar, London or Israel are relevant and important enough internationally as well as locally to be protected globally for the local residents. But then there are places that do not even HAVE “Internet”, no industry whatsoever and no recognition internationally not even nationally. A small hill for example. Or a small stream. The big question here is: how to distinguish? In the past we tried to apply ISO lists – with mixed success. But this is probably irrelevant for the names that have been banned in the 2012 round: ISO 3166 Alpha-3 and territory names. These are impacting enough to deserve extra protection by requiring a letter of non-objection by the Government! So we have TWO different problem clouds: 1. Names that have been unavailable in the 2012 round: ISO 3166 Alpha-3 and territory names! 2. Small, unknown, un-impacting geo-places (small mountain, small stream) around the world I think both need to be dealt with separately. Thanks, Alexander 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: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 3:41 PM To: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> > Cc: cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> ; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments A string may be used as a brand, a geographical name, a generic term, a purpose-specific term and a surname, among other things. Whether it is “primarily” one of those things may or may not be a relevant or workable test or factor. And how one determines the primary use is open to debate. Declaring that if some patch of dirt or pool of water has been named X, that X is always “primarily” a geographical name, regardless of other uses and factors, is a conclusion, not a basis. Invoking “transparency and predictability” as a mantra doesn’t make it any more reasoned. I don’t think there’s a “transparency” issue here at all, but since we all support transparency (except, it appears, when it comes to who owns a domain name) it must be good, right? And why the “transparency and predictability” needs of the occupants of a tiny village trump the transparency and predictability of millions of consumers is still a mystery. It represents a dirt-based physical nationalism that is very much at odds with the border less reality and future of the Internet, though experiencing a disturbing resurgence at the moment in the U.S. and elsewhere. You can build a wall at the border or around a patch of dirt; that doesn’t mean that you put that same wall around every top level domaIn name that happens to be used as a geographical name somewhere. Greg On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 3:04 AM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> > wrote: Dear Greg, Dear WT5 participants: I consider that a geographical name pertains primarily and in the first instance to the internet users (present and future) in the location concerned. This in the interests of transparency and predictability for individual users among those communities and economies. Regards CW El 2 de abril de 2018 a las 19:32 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > escribió: Kris, What is your basis for thinking that Geonames takes precedence over IP? I’d like to understand that thought process, and see how broadly you think this “precedence” should be applied (and why). Thanks! Greg On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:49 AM Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> > wrote: Just a thought: Why don’t we just ensure country codes with ISO alpha 3 is retained for countries plain and simple. There are countries where even the alpha-2 are not within an independent hands. ICANN is still working trying to release them from certain people, but still no way out. So a proposal is all the ISO alpha 3 are allotted within bounds that these could be used as alternate to alpha 2 for countries. That could clear the air for government and so on. So ISO alpha 3 can still be under GNSO per say. We do not move them to cctld.Just a thought. Then we could look at brands etc., based on IP or a strong case where it geoname attached to a country language, or culture but without also destroying a model that would be on the onus of the party requesting such Domain. Since we are talking Geonames. I think Geo takes precedence over IP but we may need to establish a strict way of engaging this as it could backfire as well. My two cents. But still it’s a double sided cutting knife. On Apr 2, 2018, at 08:35, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > wrote: I would say that the ideas and concepts in RFC 3071 are still quite relevant. I'd prefer that others (and Christopher) consider their substance, rather than finding ways to dismiss them without responding to them. We have not been at this domain name thing for all that long, and there is relatively little that looks at the taxonomy of domain names in any comprehensive way. Christopher, can you clarify what "relevant prior rights" you are referring to with regard to geographical names? Which laws and/or treaties are you referring to, and to which parts? While I hope that "the question of multiple uses can be resolved," I expect that it will, indeed it must, become a driver of "the eventual policy for geographical names." It's an interesting way to turn history on its head and state that "all sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept within GNSO." It's really quite the opposite. Once upon a time, there was a DNSO and the DNSO was in charge of policy for all domain names. Then came a time when two-letter TLDs specifically designated for a particular country or autonomous territory derived from ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes (i.e., ccTLDs) were removed from the purview of the DNSO (which was renamed the GNSO) and placed in a new "supporting organization," the ccNSO. All else remained in the GNSO. As for whether there is an analogy with brands, I'll need to understand what "relevant prior rights" (i.e., laws and/or treaties) are being invoked in that analogy before I can respond. Even assuming arguendo that there is an analogy, the issue of rights to a string really only becomes relevant when more than one party is interested in it or claims an interest or right in it. Which brings us right back to "the question of multiple uses." Best regards, Greg . _______________________________________________ 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
Hei Alexander This is an interesting discussion. Greg earlier referred to RFC 3071 from 2011, which raises some of the same questions. Before GNSO and ccNSO there was DNSO, that handled it all. However, what was raised at ICANN 61 at the WT5 meeting was that especially the different variations of country & territory names, including ISO 3166 3-letter codes, and whatever were excluded in the end from the 2012 AGB, were neither ccTLDs nor gTLDs, but “something in between” where the question was where the underlying policy authority was. And that the basic difference is that those TLDs that identify a country should be under the local community authority. So, the key element is how these country names could fit into a gTLD process without having to fall under the global policy authority and superseding the local policy authority. This was made very clear by several participants during the meeting in San Juan. In my view, it is not a question of dissolving neither GNSO nor ccNSO, but whether it is inside our scope in WT 5 to solve this question or not. As I see it we can which names are gTLDs and which are not and under which conditions, for example support/non-objection, but not to make it to “something else”, to a group that we do not have today. Kind regards Annebeth From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 20:49 To: 'Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments Hi Timo, Just for clarification: So you think a .city should be a ccTLD as well? A .state (e.g. .florida) as well? Why don’t we simply dissolve the ccNSO and end the artificial separation between ccTLDs and gTLDs – and just have ONE class of TLDs? Would make it MUCH easier! It seems you are calling for that, right? Dissolving the ccNSO? How can the harmonization of ccTLDs and gTLDs be applied for at ICANN? What would be the steps? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Timo Võhmar Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 5:12 PM To: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments Hello I support Cristopher's points The separation between generic and country code TLDs is not the question of semantics - it is about policy ie who is in control of how the TLD is operated whether it is local internet community or international community (ICANN). So from that point of view anything that stands for and represents country names must be in control of these local communities. That in general goes for geo-names as well - in my view interests of local internet community should override the corporate interests. But as the geo-names were already released under GNSO policy we should work around that to try to find a solution that works for internet communities and if no claim is made for corporate or international/generic interests. Thank you, Timo Võhmar Estonian Internet On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Hi WT5, Greg makes a valid point here: Obviously a place like Qatar, London or Israel are relevant and important enough internationally as well as locally to be protected globally for the local residents. But then there are places that do not even HAVE “Internet”, no industry whatsoever and no recognition internationally not even nationally. A small hill for example. Or a small stream. The big question here is: how to distinguish? In the past we tried to apply ISO lists – with mixed success. But this is probably irrelevant for the names that have been banned in the 2012 round: ISO 3166 Alpha-3 and territory names. These are impacting enough to deserve extra protection by requiring a letter of non-objection by the Government! So we have TWO different problem clouds: 1. Names that have been unavailable in the 2012 round: ISO 3166 Alpha-3 and territory names! 2. Small, unknown, un-impacting geo-places (small mountain, small stream) around the world I think both need to be dealt with separately. Thanks, Alexander 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: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 3:41 PM To: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Cc: cw@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments A string may be used as a brand, a geographical name, a generic term, a purpose-specific term and a surname, among other things. Whether it is “primarily” one of those things may or may not be a relevant or workable test or factor. And how one determines the primary use is open to debate. Declaring that if some patch of dirt or pool of water has been named X, that X is always “primarily” a geographical name, regardless of other uses and factors, is a conclusion, not a basis. Invoking “transparency and predictability” as a mantra doesn’t make it any more reasoned. I don’t think there’s a “transparency” issue here at all, but since we all support transparency (except, it appears, when it comes to who owns a domain name) it must be good, right? And why the “transparency and predictability” needs of the occupants of a tiny village trump the transparency and predictability of millions of consumers is still a mystery. It represents a dirt-based physical nationalism that is very much at odds with the border less reality and future of the Internet, though experiencing a disturbing resurgence at the moment in the U.S. and elsewhere. You can build a wall at the border or around a patch of dirt; that doesn’t mean that you put that same wall around every top level domaIn name that happens to be used as a geographical name somewhere. Greg On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 3:04 AM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Greg, Dear WT5 participants: I consider that a geographical name pertains primarily and in the first instance to the internet users (present and future) in the location concerned. This in the interests of transparency and predictability for individual users among those communities and economies. Regards CW El 2 de abril de 2018 a las 19:32 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> escribió: Kris, What is your basis for thinking that Geonames takes precedence over IP? I’d like to understand that thought process, and see how broadly you think this “precedence” should be applied (and why). Thanks! Greg On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:49 AM Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com>> wrote: Just a thought: Why don’t we just ensure country codes with ISO alpha 3 is retained for countries plain and simple. There are countries where even the alpha-2 are not within an independent hands. ICANN is still working trying to release them from certain people, but still no way out. So a proposal is all the ISO alpha 3 are allotted within bounds that these could be used as alternate to alpha 2 for countries. That could clear the air for government and so on. So ISO alpha 3 can still be under GNSO per say. We do not move them to cctld.Just a thought. Then we could look at brands etc., based on IP or a strong case where it geoname attached to a country language, or culture but without also destroying a model that would be on the onus of the party requesting such Domain. Since we are talking Geonames. I think Geo takes precedence over IP but we may need to establish a strict way of engaging this as it could backfire as well. My two cents. But still it’s a double sided cutting knife. On Apr 2, 2018, at 08:35, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I would say that the ideas and concepts in RFC 3071 are still quite relevant. I'd prefer that others (and Christopher) consider their substance, rather than finding ways to dismiss them without responding to them. We have not been at this domain name thing for all that long, and there is relatively little that looks at the taxonomy of domain names in any comprehensive way. Christopher, can you clarify what "relevant prior rights" you are referring to with regard to geographical names? Which laws and/or treaties are you referring to, and to which parts? While I hope that "the question of multiple uses can be resolved," I expect that it will, indeed it must, become a driver of "the eventual policy for geographical names." It's an interesting way to turn history on its head and state that "all sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept within GNSO." It's really quite the opposite. Once upon a time, there was a DNSO and the DNSO was in charge of policy for all domain names. Then came a time when two-letter TLDs specifically designated for a particular country or autonomous territory derived from ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes (i.e., ccTLDs) were removed from the purview of the DNSO (which was renamed the GNSO) and placed in a new "supporting organization," the ccNSO. All else remained in the GNSO. As for whether there is an analogy with brands, I'll need to understand what "relevant prior rights" (i.e., laws and/or treaties) are being invoked in that analogy before I can respond. Even assuming arguendo that there is an analogy, the issue of rights to a string really only becomes relevant when more than one party is interested in it or claims an interest or right in it. Which brings us right back to "the question of multiple uses." Best regards, Greg . _______________________________________________ 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
Hello Annebeth I’ve been thinking about this in more detail and am wondering whether we are getting stuck on something quite simple? We have, as we all know, maintained a distinction between what ccTLD managers do to manage two letter codes that relate to their country/identity/presence and the terms and conditions for which they do that which ranges from nothing to quite detailed Sponsorship Agreements with clear obligations and responsibilities. We also know the blurring between a two letter code used by countries and a top level domain operator is now pretty much complete. We run the spectrum of re-purposed country codes (tv, la, co as examples) which really don’t reflect their original idea (which is fine) and we have country code managers who now straddle the ccNSO and are also contracted parties within the GNSO Registry Stakeholder Group. I think it’s likely time that we approached the reality of the “contracts” for top level domain operators from a different perspective to help us resolve some key policy questions that clear some roadblocks and disagreements. For example, if we assumed that all contracts for top level domains take pretty much the same form, what would that mean for an application process, an evaluation process and a compliance regime? If we continue to assume that a baseline contract is published at the commencement of any application process, so that applicants know what they are getting in to, we can perhaps think on how we address some varied “protections” which seem to be required to reach policy consensus. Would some of our concerns about “limiting” types or styles of applications be addressed by thinking more clearly around a baseline registry agreement? Some of this was attempted in the Public Interest Commitment (PICs) in the 2012 but I wonder how effective that has been? If we had a set of policy principles for contracting which is consistent with ICANN legacy contracts, Mission and Core Values and then simplicity of accountability, we might go some way towards a more nuanced response to the opportunities presented by geographic names being used as top level domain labels. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au> Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. On 5 Apr 2018, at 5:31 pm, Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> wrote: Hei Alexander This is an interesting discussion. Greg earlier referred to RFC 3071 from 2011, which raises some of the same questions. Before GNSO and ccNSO there was DNSO, that handled it all. However, what was raised at ICANN 61 at the WT5 meeting was that especially the different variations of country & territory names, including ISO 3166 3-letter codes, and whatever were excluded in the end from the 2012 AGB, were neither ccTLDs nor gTLDs, but “something in between” where the question was where the underlying policy authority was. And that the basic difference is that those TLDs that identify a country should be under the local community authority. So, the key element is how these country names could fit into a gTLD process without having to fall under the global policy authority and superseding the local policy authority. This was made very clear by several participants during the meeting in San Juan. In my view, it is not a question of dissolving neither GNSO nor ccNSO, but whether it is inside our scope in WT 5 to solve this question or not. As I see it we can which names are gTLDs and which are not and under which conditions, for example support/non-objection, but not to make it to “something else”, to a group that we do not have today. Kind regards Annebeth From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 20:49 To: 'Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments Hi Timo, Just for clarification: So you think a .city should be a ccTLD as well? A .state (e.g. .florida) as well? Why don’t we simply dissolve the ccNSO and end the artificial separation between ccTLDs and gTLDs – and just have ONE class of TLDs? Would make it MUCH easier! It seems you are calling for that, right? Dissolving the ccNSO? How can the harmonization of ccTLDs and gTLDs be applied for at ICANN? What would be the steps? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Timo Võhmar Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 5:12 PM To: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments Hello I support Cristopher's points The separation between generic and country code TLDs is not the question of semantics - it is about policy ie who is in control of how the TLD is operated whether it is local internet community or international community (ICANN). So from that point of view anything that stands for and represents country names must be in control of these local communities. That in general goes for geo-names as well - in my view interests of local internet community should override the corporate interests. But as the geo-names were already released under GNSO policy we should work around that to try to find a solution that works for internet communities and if no claim is made for corporate or international/generic interests. Thank you, Timo Võhmar Estonian Internet On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Hi WT5, Greg makes a valid point here: Obviously a place like Qatar, London or Israel are relevant and important enough internationally as well as locally to be protected globally for the local residents. But then there are places that do not even HAVE “Internet”, no industry whatsoever and no recognition internationally not even nationally. A small hill for example. Or a small stream. The big question here is: how to distinguish? In the past we tried to apply ISO lists – with mixed success. But this is probably irrelevant for the names that have been banned in the 2012 round: ISO 3166 Alpha-3 and territory names. These are impacting enough to deserve extra protection by requiring a letter of non-objection by the Government! So we have TWO different problem clouds: 1. Names that have been unavailable in the 2012 round: ISO 3166 Alpha-3 and territory names! 2. Small, unknown, un-impacting geo-places (small mountain, small stream) around the world I think both need to be dealt with separately. Thanks, Alexander 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: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 3:41 PM To: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Cc: cw@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments A string may be used as a brand, a geographical name, a generic term, a purpose-specific term and a surname, among other things. Whether it is “primarily” one of those things may or may not be a relevant or workable test or factor. And how one determines the primary use is open to debate. Declaring that if some patch of dirt or pool of water has been named X, that X is always “primarily” a geographical name, regardless of other uses and factors, is a conclusion, not a basis. Invoking “transparency and predictability” as a mantra doesn’t make it any more reasoned. I don’t think there’s a “transparency” issue here at all, but since we all support transparency (except, it appears, when it comes to who owns a domain name) it must be good, right? And why the “transparency and predictability” needs of the occupants of a tiny village trump the transparency and predictability of millions of consumers is still a mystery. It represents a dirt-based physical nationalism that is very much at odds with the border less reality and future of the Internet, though experiencing a disturbing resurgence at the moment in the U.S. and elsewhere. You can build a wall at the border or around a patch of dirt; that doesn’t mean that you put that same wall around every top level domaIn name that happens to be used as a geographical name somewhere. Greg On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 3:04 AMlists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Greg, Dear WT5 participants: I consider that a geographical name pertains primarily and in the first instance to the internet users (present and future) in the location concerned. This in the interests of transparency and predictability for individual users among those communities and economies. Regards CW El 2 de abril de 2018 a las 19:32 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> escribió: Kris, What is your basis for thinking that Geonames takes precedence over IP? I’d like to understand that thought process, and see how broadly you think this “precedence” should be applied (and why). Thanks! Greg On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:49 AM Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com>> wrote: Just a thought: Why don’t we just ensure country codes with ISO alpha 3 is retained for countries plain and simple. There are countries where even the alpha-2 are not within an independent hands. ICANN is still working trying to release them from certain people, but still no way out. So a proposal is all the ISO alpha 3 are allotted within bounds that these could be used as alternate to alpha 2 for countries. That could clear the air for government and so on. So ISO alpha 3 can still be under GNSO per say. We do not move them to cctld.Just a thought. Then we could look at brands etc., based on IP or a strong case where it geoname attached to a country language, or culture but without also destroying a model that would be on the onus of the party requesting such Domain. Since we are talking Geonames. I think Geo takes precedence over IP but we may need to establish a strict way of engaging this as it could backfire as well. My two cents. But still it’s a double sided cutting knife. On Apr 2, 2018, at 08:35, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I would say that the ideas and concepts in RFC 3071 are still quite relevant. I'd prefer that others (and Christopher) consider their substance, rather than finding ways to dismiss them without responding to them. We have not been at this domain name thing for all that long, and there is relatively little that looks at the taxonomy of domain names in any comprehensive way. Christopher, can you clarify what "relevant prior rights" you are referring to with regard to geographical names? Which laws and/or treaties are you referring to, and to which parts? While I hope that "the question of multiple uses can be resolved," I expect that it will, indeed it must, become a driver of "the eventual policy for geographical names." It's an interesting way to turn history on its head and state that "all sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept within GNSO." It's really quite the opposite. Once upon a time, there was a DNSO and the DNSO was in charge of policy for all domain names. Then came a time when two-letter TLDs specifically designated for a particular country or autonomous territory derived from ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes (i.e., ccTLDs) were removed from the purview of the DNSO (which was renamed the GNSO) and placed in a new "supporting organization," the ccNSO. All else remained in the GNSO. As for whether there is an analogy with brands, I'll need to understand what "relevant prior rights" (i.e., laws and/or treaties) are being invoked in that analogy before I can respond. Even assuming arguendo that there is an analogy, the issue of rights to a string really only becomes relevant when more than one party is interested in it or claims an interest or right in it. Which brings us right back to "the question of multiple uses." Best regards, Greg . _______________________________________________ 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
Well said, Greg. And I would further add that rather on dwelling on abstract assertions, we should focus on what actually exists in international law on these matters for guidance in our situation. There is already robust cannon from various international treaties and other legal instruments dealing with the use of certain words (for example free expression and trademark rights) across borders. The lack of any such similar internationally recognized rights for geographic terms is actually quite instructive to us here, in that we need to recognize that whatever we do in this group, we should not subjugate existing legal rights to some newly invented geo-right concept, which does not exist in international law. If we really want to create “predictable" rules (and I think we do), we will use well-established international law as a guidepost for how to deal with these terms. I would hope we can agree on that much as a foundation for moving forward in our work. Best, Robin
On Apr 4, 2018, at 5:41 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
A string may be used as a brand, a geographical name, a generic term, a purpose-specific term and a surname, among other things.
Whether it is “primarily” one of those things may or may not be a relevant or workable test or factor. And how one determines the primary use is open to debate. Declaring that if some patch of dirt or pool of water has been named X, that X is always “primarily” a geographical name, regardless of other uses and factors, is a conclusion, not a basis.
Invoking “transparency and predictability” as a mantra doesn’t make it any more reasoned. I don’t think there’s a “transparency” issue here at all, but since we all support transparency (except, it appears, when it comes to who owns a domain name) it must be good, right? And why the “transparency and predictability” needs of the occupants of a tiny village trump the transparency and predictability of millions of consumers is still a mystery. It represents a dirt-based physical nationalism that is very much at odds with the border less reality and future of the Internet, though experiencing a disturbing resurgence at the moment in the U.S. and elsewhere. You can build a wall at the border or around a patch of dirt; that doesn’t mean that you put that same wall around every top level domaIn name that happens to be used as a geographical name somewhere.
Greg
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 3:04 AM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Greg, Dear WT5 participants:
I consider that a geographical name pertains primarily and in the first instance to the internet users (present and future) in the location concerned.
This in the interests of transparency and predictability for individual users among those communities and economies.
Regards
CW
El 2 de abril de 2018 a las 19:32 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> escribió:
Kris,
What is your basis for thinking that Geonames takes precedence over IP? I’d like to understand that thought process, and see how broadly you think this “precedence” should be applied (and why).
Thanks!
Greg
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:49 AM Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com>> wrote: Just a thought:
Why don’t we just ensure country codes with ISO alpha 3 is retained for countries plain and simple. There are countries where even the alpha-2 are not within an independent hands. ICANN is still working trying to release them from certain people, but still no way out. So a proposal is all the ISO alpha 3 are allotted within bounds that these could be used as alternate to alpha 2 for countries. That could clear the air for government and so on. So ISO alpha 3 can still be under GNSO per say. We do not move them to cctld.Just a thought.
Then we could look at brands etc., based on IP or a strong case where it geoname attached to a country language, or culture but without also destroying a model that would be on the onus of the party requesting such Domain. Since we are talking Geonames. I think Geo takes precedence over IP but we may need to establish a strict way of engaging this as it could backfire as well.
My two cents. But still it’s a double sided cutting knife.
On Apr 2, 2018, at 08:35, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
I would say that the ideas and concepts in RFC 3071 are still quite relevant. I'd prefer that others (and Christopher) consider their substance, rather than finding ways to dismiss them without responding to them. We have not been at this domain name thing for all that long, and there is relatively little that looks at the taxonomy of domain names in any comprehensive way.
Christopher, can you clarify what "relevant prior rights" you are referring to with regard to geographical names? Which laws and/or treaties are you referring to, and to which parts?
While I hope that "the question of multiple uses can be resolved," I expect that it will, indeed it must, become a driver of "the eventual policy for geographical names."
It's an interesting way to turn history on its head and state that "all sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept within GNSO." It's really quite the opposite. Once upon a time, there was a DNSO and the DNSO was in charge of policy for all domain names. Then came a time when two-letter TLDs specifically designated for a particular country or autonomous territory derived from ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes (i.e., ccTLDs) were removed from the purview of the DNSO (which was renamed the GNSO) and placed in a new "supporting organization," the ccNSO. All else remained in the GNSO.
As for whether there is an analogy with brands, I'll need to understand what "relevant prior rights" (i.e., laws and/or treaties) are being invoked in that analogy before I can respond. Even assuming arguendo that there is an analogy, the issue of rights to a string really only becomes relevant when more than one party is interested in it or claims an interest or right in it. Which brings us right back to "the question of multiple uses."
Best regards,
Greg .
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 3:16 AM, cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Good morning: Allow me to respond briefly to Greg Shatan's comments, which evidently reflect his long experience with these matters: I think that the reference to RFC 3071 <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3071.txt> is not particularly helpful at this stage. At that time, 17 years ago, John Klensin submitted this 'informational' text as 'reflexions' in his 'personal capacity'. In the interim, ICANN has taken several decisions which - for better or worse – depart from the advice of RFC 3071. We have move on. Granted that there are sometimes several meanings for certain words in English, and probably in other languages as well, but this fact does not justify ignoring relevant prior rights, not least for brands and geographical names. Bearing in mind that the latter have usually been present long before the former’s associated usage of the same same string.
In any event, ICANN would, as before, have to deal with potential conflicts between strings with more than one meaning, including several geographical names among themselves. Meanwhile, a significant proportion of geographical names do not experience multiple uses – even in English.
I am sure that the question of multiple uses can be resolved and need not become a 'driver' of the eventual policy for geographical names. Regarding GNSO and gTLDs, it is indeed instructive to learn that all sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept within GNSO.
For present purposes, so be it.
But in that case, I would also argue - by analogy with brands – that geographical names should benefit from protection in the interest of predictability and transparency for individual users, in the locations, economies and communities concerned. Regards to you all CW
2018-03-26 6:54 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:javrua@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks Christopher.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 <> twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua <https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua>
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:12 PM, "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto: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 <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 <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 <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
<KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (8)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Annebeth Lange -
Greg Shatan -
Kris Seeburn -
lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson -
Liz Williams -
Robin Gross -
Timo Võhmar