Geographic terms: additional categories
Hello everyone I wanted to refer back to our call this morning (Australia time) to provide some more examples about the nature of generic words that are also used for important geographic terms. I used three examples this morning which relate to our major river systems which is not dissimilar to the Amazon River example where the rivers flow through different states. In my example, the Murray, Darling & Murrumbidgee rivers are all significant geographic features. The first two are named after people; the third an Aboriginal word in the Wiradjuri language. The Murrumbidgee River flows through several distinct areas of Aboriginal land and forms part of the Murray River system. We could extend the analysis by including Mount Kosciuszko National Park which includes our highest mountain (and from which the Murrumbidgee flows.) Again, named after a real person (whose name likely doesn’t fit as a good TLD label!) but, nonetheless, is one of our most significant geographic identifiers. IF we were to conclude that a broader bucket of geographic identifiers (like rivers and places) were to somehow be constrained/limited/banned what purpose would that serve? For example, if the Aboriginal communities that live along the river and identify with that region, why wouldn’t they be welcome to apply for the name? The same could be said of landowners (like I was), tourist enterprises, naturalists, national parks, might also want to create a new “community” top level domain that they can use. The same could be said of the Murray/Darling examples. There are many many other examples that this group could come up with which shows the way in which humans name geographic features that are intrinsic parts of their culture. From my personal perspective expanding any limitations on what applicants can apply for is a negative idea. Instead, we need to work towards enabling the expansion of the domain name space to suit end users. And most importantly, we need simple steps (I think we need some schematic to show how this could work in practical evaluation) to understand how to deal with contention and to resolve that contention efficiently and fairly. 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.
Dear Liz This is a very important discussion and thanks for framing it simply. I am guessing the issue about the Aboriginal community being able to register the name is whether or not they will be competing against another company who trademarked that name and who could possibly sue them. And maybe they don't even register the domain name but create a handcraft company with the river name. In that sense, it is not about limiting the registration of a name but ensuring protection for communities which are left vulnerable if exclusive registration rights and associated IP rights are given to whoever first registers the name. But this is probably out of the scope of WT5 since it deals with governmental objections and not unrecognized minority communities or treaties without a broader international intergovernmental acceptance. Best, Renata On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au> wrote:
Hello everyone
I wanted to refer back to our call this morning (Australia time) to provide some more examples about the nature of generic words that are also used for important geographic terms. I used three examples this morning which relate to our major river systems which is not dissimilar to the Amazon River example where the rivers flow through different states. In my example, the Murray, Darling & Murrumbidgee rivers are all significant geographic features. The first two are named after people; the third an Aboriginal word in the Wiradjuri language. The Murrumbidgee River flows through several distinct areas of Aboriginal land and forms part of the Murray River system.
We could extend the analysis by including Mount Kosciuszko National Park which includes our highest mountain (and from which the Murrumbidgee flows.) Again, named after a real person (whose name likely doesn’t fit as a good TLD label!) but, nonetheless, is one of our most significant geographic identifiers.
IF we were to conclude that a broader bucket of geographic identifiers (like rivers and places) were to somehow be constrained/limited/banned what purpose would that serve? For example, if the Aboriginal communities that live along the river and identify with that region, why wouldn’t they be welcome to apply for the name? The same could be said of landowners (like I was), tourist enterprises, naturalists, national parks, might also want to create a new “community” top level domain that they can use. The same could be said of the Murray/Darling examples.
There are many many other examples that this group could come up with which shows the way in which humans name geographic features that are intrinsic parts of their culture. From my personal perspective expanding any limitations on what applicants can apply for is a negative idea. Instead, we need to work towards enabling the expansion of the domain name space to suit end users.
And most importantly, we need simple steps (I think we need some schematic to show how this could work in practical evaluation) to understand how to deal with contention and to resolve that contention efficiently and fairly.
Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au 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.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Hello Renata You have raised some interesting wrinkles. The first is we mustn’t conflate the application for a domain name with intellectual property rights. My IP lawyer friends will have different views I am sure, but, a new top level domain can exist quite happily alongside any array of IP rights which may exist at the top level of the domain name system and at the second level in domain name registrations. For example, to use Jeff’s idea from this morning, .mars can exist alongside www.mars.com<http://www.mars.com> alongside www.marstheplanet.com<http://www.marstheplanet.com> and Jacqueline Mars (the woman whose family the company is named after). The issue is to be sure that consumers are not confused and that bad faith use is not allowed… And to your second point, communities are not disadvantaged if they don’t apply for a domain name. Let’s use Murrumbidgee as the example. It may be that a community or group or geographic area are not interested and find different ways of expressing themselves on-line. That is fine. What isn’t fine is if they are constrained BEFORE they have even have a chance to decide. It is always annoying and expensive and time consuming if there is contention for a name…that is why there must be simple mechanisms to resolve that contention. And to your last point. I think this issue is directly within scope for the consideration of this group. Governments have responsibilities around the setting of and implementation of public policy in their jurisdictions. However, in the context of new top level domain policy processes, government stakeholders are part of a much broader constellation of people whose views need to be considered…and we don’t need an international treaty for that to happen. I hope that we can talk about this area in much more detail within the group. Best wishes. 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 19 Apr 2018, at 11:16 am, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino@gmail.com<mailto:raquino@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Liz This is a very important discussion and thanks for framing it simply. I am guessing the issue about the Aboriginal community being able to register the name is whether or not they will be competing against another company who trademarked that name and who could possibly sue them. And maybe they don't even register the domain name but create a handcraft company with the river name. In that sense, it is not about limiting the registration of a name but ensuring protection for communities which are left vulnerable if exclusive registration rights and associated IP rights are given to whoever first registers the name. But this is probably out of the scope of WT5 since it deals with governmental objections and not unrecognized minority communities or treaties without a broader international intergovernmental acceptance. Best, Renata On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> wrote: Hello everyone I wanted to refer back to our call this morning (Australia time) to provide some more examples about the nature of generic words that are also used for important geographic terms. I used three examples this morning which relate to our major river systems which is not dissimilar to the Amazon River example where the rivers flow through different states. In my example, the Murray, Darling & Murrumbidgee rivers are all significant geographic features. The first two are named after people; the third an Aboriginal word in the Wiradjuri language. The Murrumbidgee River flows through several distinct areas of Aboriginal land and forms part of the Murray River system. We could extend the analysis by including Mount Kosciuszko National Park which includes our highest mountain (and from which the Murrumbidgee flows.) Again, named after a real person (whose name likely doesn’t fit as a good TLD label!) but, nonetheless, is one of our most significant geographic identifiers. IF we were to conclude that a broader bucket of geographic identifiers (like rivers and places) were to somehow be constrained/limited/banned what purpose would that serve? For example, if the Aboriginal communities that live along the river and identify with that region, why wouldn’t they be welcome to apply for the name? The same could be said of landowners (like I was), tourist enterprises, naturalists, national parks, might also want to create a new “community” top level domain that they can use. The same could be said of the Murray/Darling examples. There are many many other examples that this group could come up with which shows the way in which humans name geographic features that are intrinsic parts of their culture. From my personal perspective expanding any limitations on what applicants can apply for is a negative idea. Instead, we need to work towards enabling the expansion of the domain name space to suit end users. And most importantly, we need simple steps (I think we need some schematic to show how this could work in practical evaluation) to understand how to deal with contention and to resolve that contention efficiently and fairly. 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Great discussion, Liz & Renata. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Apr 18, 2018, at 9:31 PM, Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au> wrote:
Hello Renata
You have raised some interesting wrinkles. The first is we mustn’t conflate the application for a domain name with intellectual property rights. My IP lawyer friends will have different views I am sure, but, a new top level domain can exist quite happily alongside any array of IP rights which may exist at the top level of the domain name system and at the second level in domain name registrations. For example, to use Jeff’s idea from this morning, .mars can exist alongside www.mars.com alongside www.marstheplanet.com and Jacqueline Mars (the woman whose family the company is named after). The issue is to be sure that consumers are not confused and that bad faith use is not allowed…
And to your second point, communities are not disadvantaged if they don’t apply for a domain name. Let’s use Murrumbidgee as the example. It may be that a community or group or geographic area are not interested and find different ways of expressing themselves on-line. That is fine. What isn’t fine is if they are constrained BEFORE they have even have a chance to decide. It is always annoying and expensive and time consuming if there is contention for a name…that is why there must be simple mechanisms to resolve that contention.
And to your last point. I think this issue is directly within scope for the consideration of this group. Governments have responsibilities around the setting of and implementation of public policy in their jurisdictions. However, in the context of new top level domain policy processes, government stakeholders are part of a much broader constellation of people whose views need to be considered…and we don’t need an international treaty for that to happen.
I hope that we can talk about this area in much more detail within the group.
Best wishes.
Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au 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 19 Apr 2018, at 11:16 am, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Liz
This is a very important discussion and thanks for framing it simply. I am guessing the issue about the Aboriginal community being able to register the name is whether or not they will be competing against another company who trademarked that name and who could possibly sue them. And maybe they don't even register the domain name but create a handcraft company with the river name. In that sense, it is not about limiting the registration of a name but ensuring protection for communities which are left vulnerable if exclusive registration rights and associated IP rights are given to whoever first registers the name.
But this is probably out of the scope of WT5 since it deals with governmental objections and not unrecognized minority communities or treaties without a broader international intergovernmental acceptance.
Best,
Renata
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au> wrote: Hello everyone
I wanted to refer back to our call this morning (Australia time) to provide some more examples about the nature of generic words that are also used for important geographic terms. I used three examples this morning which relate to our major river systems which is not dissimilar to the Amazon River example where the rivers flow through different states. In my example, the Murray, Darling & Murrumbidgee rivers are all significant geographic features. The first two are named after people; the third an Aboriginal word in the Wiradjuri language. The Murrumbidgee River flows through several distinct areas of Aboriginal land and forms part of the Murray River system.
We could extend the analysis by including Mount Kosciuszko National Park which includes our highest mountain (and from which the Murrumbidgee flows.) Again, named after a real person (whose name likely doesn’t fit as a good TLD label!) but, nonetheless, is one of our most significant geographic identifiers.
IF we were to conclude that a broader bucket of geographic identifiers (like rivers and places) were to somehow be constrained/limited/banned what purpose would that serve? For example, if the Aboriginal communities that live along the river and identify with that region, why wouldn’t they be welcome to apply for the name? The same could be said of landowners (like I was), tourist enterprises, naturalists, national parks, might also want to create a new “community” top level domain that they can use. The same could be said of the Murray/Darling examples.
There are many many other examples that this group could come up with which shows the way in which humans name geographic features that are intrinsic parts of their culture. From my personal perspective expanding any limitations on what applicants can apply for is a negative idea. Instead, we need to work towards enabling the expansion of the domain name space to suit end users.
And most importantly, we need simple steps (I think we need some schematic to show how this could work in practical evaluation) to understand how to deal with contention and to resolve that contention efficiently and fairly.
Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au 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.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear all If I may chime in… the 2012 round has shown that some names with geographic significance which were left out of the 2012 AGB rules on “geo names” have created and are still creating issues. What is needed in my opinion is a framework that covers such names (to what level of granularity is something we would need to decide on) in order to create predictability and a fair say for the interested applicants and the affected communities (which normally will be represented by different Government levels). As I have mentioned before, according to the available data (for instance the data circulated prior to the webinar organized in April 2017) the 2012 AGB requirement of a “non-objection letter” by the relevant public authorities worked well, as it created a good mix of incentives for applicants and relevant authorities to arrive at mutually accepted solutions for the delegation of the strings. This by no means implies to take such names out of the pool of potential TLD. It just contributes in creating a framework for getting the right people at the table before the application is submitted and preempts many potential ex-post conflicts… Best regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Javier Rua Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. April 2018 03:35 An: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Geographic terms: additional categories Great discussion, Liz & Renata. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua On Apr 18, 2018, at 9:31 PM, Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> wrote: Hello Renata You have raised some interesting wrinkles. The first is we mustn’t conflate the application for a domain name with intellectual property rights. My IP lawyer friends will have different views I am sure, but, a new top level domain can exist quite happily alongside any array of IP rights which may exist at the top level of the domain name system and at the second level in domain name registrations. For example, to use Jeff’s idea from this morning, .mars can exist alongside www.mars.com<http://www.mars.com> alongside www.marstheplanet.com<http://www.marstheplanet.com> and Jacqueline Mars (the woman whose family the company is named after). The issue is to be sure that consumers are not confused and that bad faith use is not allowed… And to your second point, communities are not disadvantaged if they don’t apply for a domain name. Let’s use Murrumbidgee as the example. It may be that a community or group or geographic area are not interested and find different ways of expressing themselves on-line. That is fine. What isn’t fine is if they are constrained BEFORE they have even have a chance to decide. It is always annoying and expensive and time consuming if there is contention for a name…that is why there must be simple mechanisms to resolve that contention. And to your last point. I think this issue is directly within scope for the consideration of this group. Governments have responsibilities around the setting of and implementation of public policy in their jurisdictions. However, in the context of new top level domain policy processes, government stakeholders are part of a much broader constellation of people whose views need to be considered…and we don’t need an international treaty for that to happen. I hope that we can talk about this area in much more detail within the group. Best wishes. 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 19 Apr 2018, at 11:16 am, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino@gmail.com<mailto:raquino@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Liz This is a very important discussion and thanks for framing it simply. I am guessing the issue about the Aboriginal community being able to register the name is whether or not they will be competing against another company who trademarked that name and who could possibly sue them. And maybe they don't even register the domain name but create a handcraft company with the river name. In that sense, it is not about limiting the registration of a name but ensuring protection for communities which are left vulnerable if exclusive registration rights and associated IP rights are given to whoever first registers the name. But this is probably out of the scope of WT5 since it deals with governmental objections and not unrecognized minority communities or treaties without a broader international intergovernmental acceptance. Best, Renata On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> wrote: Hello everyone I wanted to refer back to our call this morning (Australia time) to provide some more examples about the nature of generic words that are also used for important geographic terms. I used three examples this morning which relate to our major river systems which is not dissimilar to the Amazon River example where the rivers flow through different states. In my example, the Murray, Darling & Murrumbidgee rivers are all significant geographic features. The first two are named after people; the third an Aboriginal word in the Wiradjuri language. The Murrumbidgee River flows through several distinct areas of Aboriginal land and forms part of the Murray River system. We could extend the analysis by including Mount Kosciuszko National Park which includes our highest mountain (and from which the Murrumbidgee flows.) Again, named after a real person (whose name likely doesn’t fit as a good TLD label!) but, nonetheless, is one of our most significant geographic identifiers. IF we were to conclude that a broader bucket of geographic identifiers (like rivers and places) were to somehow be constrained/limited/banned what purpose would that serve? For example, if the Aboriginal communities that live along the river and identify with that region, why wouldn’t they be welcome to apply for the name? The same could be said of landowners (like I was), tourist enterprises, naturalists, national parks, might also want to create a new “community” top level domain that they can use. The same could be said of the Murray/Darling examples. There are many many other examples that this group could come up with which shows the way in which humans name geographic features that are intrinsic parts of their culture. From my personal perspective expanding any limitations on what applicants can apply for is a negative idea. Instead, we need to work towards enabling the expansion of the domain name space to suit end users. And most importantly, we need simple steps (I think we need some schematic to show how this could work in practical evaluation) to understand how to deal with contention and to resolve that contention efficiently and fairly. 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. _______________________________________________ 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
Hello Jorge I really appreciated your insights. One thing I think needs further exploration is the notion of "interested applicants and the affected communities (which normally will be represented by different Government levels.” I don’t think this is true as much as I would like it to be so. I think, in many jurisdictions, there are direct and very evident tensions between communities and their “governments” and we can see plenty of examples of that in global real politick. It is awkward indeed that ICANN new TLD evaluators might sometimes be in the business of making decisions about affected communities and applicants for new top level domains where governments may have explicit interests that are in direct conflict. The .africa example is a case in point. What I don’t want to see is that a legitimate applicant for a top level domain would be punished/evaluated negatively because a government entity doesn’t agree with its position/entitlement/raison d’être. My “freedom of expression” colleagues will articulate these arguments better than I will do but we need to be aware that governments and communities’ interests do not necessarily intersect. I am looking forward to hearing other views from WT5 members. 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 19 Apr 2018, at 5:05 pm, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear all If I may chime in… the 2012 round has shown that some names with geographic significance which were left out of the 2012 AGB rules on “geo names” have created and are still creating issues. What is needed in my opinion is a framework that covers such names (to what level of granularity is something we would need to decide on) in order to create predictability and a fair say for the interested applicants and the affected communities (which normally will be represented by different Government levels). As I have mentioned before, according to the available data (for instance the data circulated prior to the webinar organized in April 2017) the 2012 AGB requirement of a “non-objection letter” by the relevant public authorities worked well, as it created a good mix of incentives for applicants and relevant authorities to arrive at mutually accepted solutions for the delegation of the strings. This by no means implies to take such names out of the pool of potential TLD. It just contributes in creating a framework for getting the right people at the table before the application is submitted and preempts many potential ex-post conflicts… Best regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Javier Rua Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. April 2018 03:35 An: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Geographic terms: additional categories Great discussion, Liz & Renata. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua On Apr 18, 2018, at 9:31 PM, Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> wrote: Hello Renata You have raised some interesting wrinkles. The first is we mustn’t conflate the application for a domain name with intellectual property rights. My IP lawyer friends will have different views I am sure, but, a new top level domain can exist quite happily alongside any array of IP rights which may exist at the top level of the domain name system and at the second level in domain name registrations. For example, to use Jeff’s idea from this morning, .mars can exist alongsidewww.mars.com<http://www.mars.com/> alongside www.marstheplanet.com<http://www.marstheplanet.com/> and Jacqueline Mars (the woman whose family the company is named after). The issue is to be sure that consumers are not confused and that bad faith use is not allowed… And to your second point, communities are not disadvantaged if they don’t apply for a domain name. Let’s use Murrumbidgee as the example. It may be that a community or group or geographic area are not interested and find different ways of expressing themselves on-line. That is fine. What isn’t fine is if they are constrained BEFORE they have even have a chance to decide. It is always annoying and expensive and time consuming if there is contention for a name…that is why there must be simple mechanisms to resolve that contention. And to your last point. I think this issue is directly within scope for the consideration of this group. Governments have responsibilities around the setting of and implementation of public policy in their jurisdictions. However, in the context of new top level domain policy processes, government stakeholders are part of a much broader constellation of people whose views need to be considered…and we don’t need an international treaty for that to happen. I hope that we can talk about this area in much more detail within the group. Best wishes. 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 19 Apr 2018, at 11:16 am, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino@gmail.com<mailto:raquino@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Liz This is a very important discussion and thanks for framing it simply. I am guessing the issue about the Aboriginal community being able to register the name is whether or not they will be competing against another company who trademarked that name and who could possibly sue them. And maybe they don't even register the domain name but create a handcraft company with the river name. In that sense, it is not about limiting the registration of a name but ensuring protection for communities which are left vulnerable if exclusive registration rights and associated IP rights are given to whoever first registers the name. But this is probably out of the scope of WT5 since it deals with governmental objections and not unrecognized minority communities or treaties without a broader international intergovernmental acceptance. Best, Renata On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> wrote: Hello everyone I wanted to refer back to our call this morning (Australia time) to provide some more examples about the nature of generic words that are also used for important geographic terms. I used three examples this morning which relate to our major river systems which is not dissimilar to the Amazon River example where the rivers flow through different states. In my example, the Murray, Darling & Murrumbidgee rivers are all significant geographic features. The first two are named after people; the third an Aboriginal word in the Wiradjuri language. The Murrumbidgee River flows through several distinct areas of Aboriginal land and forms part of the Murray River system. We could extend the analysis by including Mount Kosciuszko National Park which includes our highest mountain (and from which the Murrumbidgee flows.) Again, named after a real person (whose name likely doesn’t fit as a good TLD label!) but, nonetheless, is one of our most significant geographic identifiers. IF we were to conclude that a broader bucket of geographic identifiers (like rivers and places) were to somehow be constrained/limited/banned what purpose would that serve? For example, if the Aboriginal communities that live along the river and identify with that region, why wouldn’t they be welcome to apply for the name? The same could be said of landowners (like I was), tourist enterprises, naturalists, national parks, might also want to create a new “community” top level domain that they can use. The same could be said of the Murray/Darling examples. There are many many other examples that this group could come up with which shows the way in which humans name geographic features that are intrinsic parts of their culture. From my personal perspective expanding any limitations on what applicants can apply for is a negative idea. Instead, we need to work towards enabling the expansion of the domain name space to suit end users. And most importantly, we need simple steps (I think we need some schematic to show how this could work in practical evaluation) to understand how to deal with contention and to resolve that contention efficiently and fairly. 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
I agree Liz. Also, let's take some real examples of the dictionary term issue we need to solve. Apparently, two of the oldest rivers in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_by_age) are the New River in the US and the Save river in Africa. Applicants for .NEW or .SAVE undoubtedly would not be applying for such names due to the rivers nor would they intend that the use of the TLDs be related to the rivers at all. Should we really have a policy that requires a letter of non-opposition by the relevant government for these names? Should the US government and/or the States of North Carolina, Virginia, or West Virginia have veto rights over whether .NEW should exist? Should Zimbabwe or Mozambique have veto rights over .SAVE? .NEW and .SAVE are not edge cases. There are hundreds of these kinds of terms that also happen to be geographic names. There is a Coffee City in Texas; Bath in the UK; etc. Perhaps we should retain an expert in toponymy to educate us on the prevalence of these terms. I do agree with Jorge that we need a framework that provides predictability, but that framework shouldn't be just giving veto rights to governments in all cases, which is what requiring letters of non-opposition would do in fact. We have to come up with a policy that takes into account generic/dictionary words that also happen to be geographic terms and the intended uses of such proposed TLDs. Thanks. Jon
On Apr 19, 2018, at 4:58 AM, Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au> wrote:
Hello Jorge
I really appreciated your insights. One thing I think needs further exploration is the notion of "interested applicants and the affected communities (which normally will be represented by different Government levels.”
I don’t think this is true as much as I would like it to be so. I think, in many jurisdictions, there are direct and very evident tensions between communities and their “governments” and we can see plenty of examples of that in global real politick. It is awkward indeed that ICANN new TLD evaluators might sometimes be in the business of making decisions about affected communities and applicants for new top level domains where governments may have explicit interests that are in direct conflict. The .africa example is a case in point.
What I don’t want to see is that a legitimate applicant for a top level domain would be punished/evaluated negatively because a government entity doesn’t agree with its position/entitlement/raison d’être. My “freedom of expression” colleagues will articulate these arguments better than I will do but we need to be aware that governments and communities’ interests do not necessarily intersect.
I am looking forward to hearing other views from WT5 members.
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 19 Apr 2018, at 5:05 pm, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear all
If I may chime in… the 2012 round has shown that some names with geographic significance which were left out of the 2012 AGB rules on “geo names” have created and are still creating issues.
What is needed in my opinion is a framework that covers such names (to what level of granularity is something we would need to decide on) in order to create predictability and a fair say for the interested applicants and the affected communities (which normally will be represented by different Government levels).
As I have mentioned before, according to the available data (for instance the data circulated prior to the webinar organized in April 2017) the 2012 AGB requirement of a “non-objection letter” by the relevant public authorities worked well, as it created a good mix of incentives for applicants and relevant authorities to arrive at mutually accepted solutions for the delegation of the strings.
This by no means implies to take such names out of the pool of potential TLD. It just contributes in creating a framework for getting the right people at the table before the application is submitted and preempts many potential ex-post conflicts…
Best regards
Jorge
Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Javier Rua Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. April 2018 03:35 An: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Geographic terms: additional categories
Great discussion, Liz & Renata.
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 Apr 18, 2018, at 9:31 PM, Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> wrote:
Hello Renata
You have raised some interesting wrinkles. The first is we mustn’t conflate the application for a domain name with intellectual property rights. My IP lawyer friends will have different views I am sure, but, a new top level domain can exist quite happily alongside any array of IP rights which may exist at the top level of the domain name system and at the second level in domain name registrations. For example, to use Jeff’s idea from this morning, .mars can exist alongsidewww.mars.com <http://www.mars.com/> alongside www.marstheplanet.com <http://www.marstheplanet.com/> and Jacqueline Mars (the woman whose family the company is named after). The issue is to be sure that consumers are not confused and that bad faith use is not allowed…
And to your second point, communities are not disadvantaged if they don’t apply for a domain name. Let’s use Murrumbidgee as the example. It may be that a community or group or geographic area are not interested and find different ways of expressing themselves on-line. That is fine. What isn’t fine is if they are constrained BEFORE they have even have a chance to decide. It is always annoying and expensive and time consuming if there is contention for a name…that is why there must be simple mechanisms to resolve that contention.
And to your last point. I think this issue is directly within scope for the consideration of this group. Governments have responsibilities around the setting of and implementation of public policy in their jurisdictions. However, in the context of new top level domain policy processes, government stakeholders are part of a much broader constellation of people whose views need to be considered…and we don’t need an international treaty for that to happen.
I hope that we can talk about this area in much more detail within the group.
Best wishes.
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 19 Apr 2018, at 11:16 am, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino@gmail.com <mailto:raquino@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Liz
This is a very important discussion and thanks for framing it simply. I am guessing the issue about the Aboriginal community being able to register the name is whether or not they will be competing against another company who trademarked that name and who could possibly sue them. And maybe they don't even register the domain name but create a handcraft company with the river name. In that sense, it is not about limiting the registration of a name but ensuring protection for communities which are left vulnerable if exclusive registration rights and associated IP rights are given to whoever first registers the name.
But this is probably out of the scope of WT5 since it deals with governmental objections and not unrecognized minority communities or treaties without a broader international intergovernmental acceptance.
Best,
Renata
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> wrote:
Hello everyone
I wanted to refer back to our call this morning (Australia time) to provide some more examples about the nature of generic words that are also used for important geographic terms. I used three examples this morning which relate to our major river systems which is not dissimilar to the Amazon River example where the rivers flow through different states. In my example, the Murray, Darling & Murrumbidgee rivers are all significant geographic features. The first two are named after people; the third an Aboriginal word in the Wiradjuri language. The Murrumbidgee River flows through several distinct areas of Aboriginal land and forms part of the Murray River system.
We could extend the analysis by including Mount Kosciuszko National Park which includes our highest mountain (and from which the Murrumbidgee flows.) Again, named after a real person (whose name likely doesn’t fit as a good TLD label!) but, nonetheless, is one of our most significant geographic identifiers.
IF we were to conclude that a broader bucket of geographic identifiers (like rivers and places) were to somehow be constrained/limited/banned what purpose would that serve? For example, if the Aboriginal communities that live along the river and identify with that region, why wouldn’t they be welcome to apply for the name? The same could be said of landowners (like I was), tourist enterprises, naturalists, national parks, might also want to create a new “community” top level domain that they can use. The same could be said of the Murray/Darling examples.
There are many many other examples that this group could come up with which shows the way in which humans name geographic features that are intrinsic parts of their culture. From my personal perspective expanding any limitations on what applicants can apply for is a negative idea. Instead, we need to work towards enabling the expansion of the domain name space to suit end users.
And most importantly, we need simple steps (I think we need some schematic to show how this could work in practical evaluation) to understand how to deal with contention and to resolve that contention efficiently and fairly.
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.
_______________________________________________ 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
I would like to support Jon’s rationale! Let’s look at what we try to “prevent” or “protect”: A geo entity (mountain, river, city, state, continent, whatever) doesn’t require “protection” just because it exists – only if it is RELEVANT to a substantial group of people. Just because there is a “New River” in the U.S. – nobody would assume that a generic TLD “.new” should require ANY approval by ANY authority. No river needs “protection” per se. Only if there are actual people who benefit from the protection – or would be hurt if the protection was inexistent. Not PLACES need to be protected – but THE PEOPLE affiliated with these places. Jon is right: We need to balance between REAL WORLD PROTECTION NEEDS of groups of people – and the fact that many geo terms are very generic. And precisely that’s what makes it so difficult. What is relevant enough for a sizable enough group of people to allow them a “veto” (being it implicit or explicit: requiring a letter of non-objection or granting them objection rights). With that we are back to the “beauty contest” – which we wanted to avoid! Who is going to decide whether some geo entity is really so IMPORTANT that the affiliated people should have a right to objection – or even should be asked for a letter of non-objection. Another important item is prioritization: Should the world renowned capital of Germany have to provide letters of non-objection from 10,000 people nests in the USA? What if the nest doesn’t react? We actually approached all of them (there is a bunch in the U.S.) back in 2006 /2007 – they had ZERO desire to “protect” the name BERLIN for themselves – but getting actual letters: why would they create one? Imagine you need a letter from a small Chinese province, or a tiny Russian town: They do not even speak English. They might not be ABLE to provide such legal binding document without the consent of some “state” or even the central Government. A big huge mess! What about a city with 2,000 inhabitants that accidentally has an identical name? There must be some threshold. Thanks Jon for bringing it up. Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 4:18 PM To: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Geographic terms: additional categories I agree Liz. Also, let's take some real examples of the dictionary term issue we need to solve. Apparently, two of the oldest rivers in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_by_age) are the New River in the US and the Save river in Africa. Applicants for .NEW or .SAVE undoubtedly would not be applying for such names due to the rivers nor would they intend that the use of the TLDs be related to the rivers at all. Should we really have a policy that requires a letter of non-opposition by the relevant government for these names? Should the US government and/or the States of North Carolina, Virginia, or West Virginia have veto rights over whether .NEW should exist? Should Zimbabwe or Mozambique have veto rights over .SAVE? .NEW and .SAVE are not edge cases. There are hundreds of these kinds of terms that also happen to be geographic names. There is a Coffee City in Texas; Bath in the UK; etc. Perhaps we should retain an expert in toponymy to educate us on the prevalence of these terms. I do agree with Jorge that we need a framework that provides predictability, but that framework shouldn't be just giving veto rights to governments in all cases, which is what requiring letters of non-opposition would do in fact. We have to come up with a policy that takes into account generic/dictionary words that also happen to be geographic terms and the intended uses of such proposed TLDs. Thanks. Jon On Apr 19, 2018, at 4:58 AM, Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> > wrote: Hello Jorge I really appreciated your insights. One thing I think needs further exploration is the notion of "interested applicants and the affected communities (which normally will be represented by different Government levels.” I don’t think this is true as much as I would like it to be so. I think, in many jurisdictions, there are direct and very evident tensions between communities and their “governments” and we can see plenty of examples of that in global real politick. It is awkward indeed that ICANN new TLD evaluators might sometimes be in the business of making decisions about affected communities and applicants for new top level domains where governments may have explicit interests that are in direct conflict. The .africa example is a case in point. What I don’t want to see is that a legitimate applicant for a top level domain would be punished/evaluated negatively because a government entity doesn’t agree with its position/entitlement/raison d’être. My “freedom of expression” colleagues will articulate these arguments better than I will do but we need to be aware that governments and communities’ interests do not necessarily intersect. I am looking forward to hearing other views from WT5 members. 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 19 Apr 2018, at 5:05 pm, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear all If I may chime in… the 2012 round has shown that some names with geographic significance which were left out of the 2012 AGB rules on “geo names” have created and are still creating issues. What is needed in my opinion is a framework that covers such names (to what level of granularity is something we would need to decide on) in order to create predictability and a fair say for the interested applicants and the affected communities (which normally will be represented by different Government levels). As I have mentioned before, according to the available data (for instance the data circulated prior to the webinar organized in April 2017) the 2012 AGB requirement of a “non-objection letter” by the relevant public authorities worked well, as it created a good mix of incentives for applicants and relevant authorities to arrive at mutually accepted solutions for the delegation of the strings. This by no means implies to take such names out of the pool of potential TLD. It just contributes in creating a framework for getting the right people at the table before the application is submitted and preempts many potential ex-post conflicts… Best regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Javier Rua Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. April 2018 03:35 An: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Geographic terms: additional categories Great discussion, Liz & Renata. 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 Apr 18, 2018, at 9:31 PM, Liz Williams < <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> liz.williams@auda.org.au> wrote: Hello Renata You have raised some interesting wrinkles. The first is we mustn’t conflate the application for a domain name with intellectual property rights. My IP lawyer friends will have different views I am sure, but, a new top level domain can exist quite happily alongside any array of IP rights which may exist at the top level of the domain name system and at the second level in domain name registrations. For example, to use Jeff’s idea from this morning, .mars can exist alongside <http://www.mars.com/> www.mars.com alongside <http://www.marstheplanet.com/> www.marstheplanet.com and Jacqueline Mars (the woman whose family the company is named after). The issue is to be sure that consumers are not confused and that bad faith use is not allowed… And to your second point, communities are not disadvantaged if they don’t apply for a domain name. Let’s use Murrumbidgee as the example. It may be that a community or group or geographic area are not interested and find different ways of expressing themselves on-line. That is fine. What isn’t fine is if they are constrained BEFORE they have even have a chance to decide. It is always annoying and expensive and time consuming if there is contention for a name…that is why there must be simple mechanisms to resolve that contention. And to your last point. I think this issue is directly within scope for the consideration of this group. Governments have responsibilities around the setting of and implementation of public policy in their jurisdictions. However, in the context of new top level domain policy processes, government stakeholders are part of a much broader constellation of people whose views need to be considered…and we don’t need an international treaty for that to happen. I hope that we can talk about this area in much more detail within the group. Best wishes. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> liz.williams@auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> 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 19 Apr 2018, at 11:16 am, Renata Aquino Ribeiro < <mailto:raquino@gmail.com> raquino@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Liz This is a very important discussion and thanks for framing it simply. I am guessing the issue about the Aboriginal community being able to register the name is whether or not they will be competing against another company who trademarked that name and who could possibly sue them. And maybe they don't even register the domain name but create a handcraft company with the river name. In that sense, it is not about limiting the registration of a name but ensuring protection for communities which are left vulnerable if exclusive registration rights and associated IP rights are given to whoever first registers the name. But this is probably out of the scope of WT5 since it deals with governmental objections and not unrecognized minority communities or treaties without a broader international intergovernmental acceptance. Best, Renata On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Liz Williams < <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> liz.williams@auda.org.au> wrote: Hello everyone I wanted to refer back to our call this morning (Australia time) to provide some more examples about the nature of generic words that are also used for important geographic terms. I used three examples this morning which relate to our major river systems which is not dissimilar to the Amazon River example where the rivers flow through different states. In my example, the Murray, Darling & Murrumbidgee rivers are all significant geographic features. The first two are named after people; the third an Aboriginal word in the Wiradjuri language. The Murrumbidgee River flows through several distinct areas of Aboriginal land and forms part of the Murray River system. We could extend the analysis by including Mount Kosciuszko National Park which includes our highest mountain (and from which the Murrumbidgee flows.) Again, named after a real person (whose name likely doesn’t fit as a good TLD label!) but, nonetheless, is one of our most significant geographic identifiers. IF we were to conclude that a broader bucket of geographic identifiers (like rivers and places) were to somehow be constrained/limited/banned what purpose would that serve? For example, if the Aboriginal communities that live along the river and identify with that region, why wouldn’t they be welcome to apply for the name? The same could be said of landowners (like I was), tourist enterprises, naturalists, national parks, might also want to create a new “community” top level domain that they can use. The same could be said of the Murray/Darling examples. There are many many other examples that this group could come up with which shows the way in which humans name geographic features that are intrinsic parts of their culture. From my personal perspective expanding any limitations on what applicants can apply for is a negative idea. Instead, we need to work towards enabling the expansion of the domain name space to suit end users. And most importantly, we need simple steps (I think we need some schematic to show how this could work in practical evaluation) to understand how to deal with contention and to resolve that contention efficiently and fairly. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> liz.williams@auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 at 22:41, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
I would like to support Jon’s rationale!
Let’s look at what we try to “prevent” or “protect”:
A geo entity (mountain, river, city, state, continent, whatever) doesn’t require “protection” just because it exists – only if it is RELEVANT to a substantial group of people. Just because there is a “New River” in the U.S. – nobody would assume that a generic TLD “.new” should require ANY approval by ANY authority. No river needs “protection” per se. Only if there are actual people who benefit from the protection – or would be hurt if the protection was inexistent. Not PLACES need to be protected – but THE PEOPLE affiliated with these places.
Jon is right: We need to balance between REAL WORLD PROTECTION NEEDS of groups of people – and the fact that many geo terms are very generic.
And precisely that’s what makes it so difficult. What is relevant enough for a sizable enough group of people to allow them a “veto” (being it implicit or explicit: requiring a letter of non-objection or granting them objection rights).
With that we are back to the “beauty contest” – which we wanted to avoid! Who is going to decide whether some geo entity is really so IMPORTANT that the affiliated people should have a right to objection – or even should be asked for a letter of non-objection.
Another important item is prioritization: Should the world renowned capital of Germany have to provide letters of non-objection from 10,000 people nests in the USA? What if the nest doesn’t react? We actually approached all of them (there is a bunch in the U.S.) back in 2006 /2007 – they had ZERO desire to “protect” the name BERLIN for themselves – but getting actual letters: why would they create one? Imagine you need a letter from a small Chinese province, or a tiny Russian town: They do not even speak English. They might not be ABLE to provide such legal binding document without the consent of some “state” or even the central Government. A big huge mess! What about a city with 2,000 inhabitants that accidentally has an identical name? There must be some threshold.
Thanks Jon for bringing it up.
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jon Nevett *Sent:* Thursday, April 19, 2018 4:18 PM *To:* Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Geographic terms: additional categories
I agree Liz.
Also, let's take some real examples of the dictionary term issue we need to solve. Apparently, two of the oldest rivers in the world ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_by_age) are the New River in the US and the Save river in Africa.
Applicants for .NEW or .SAVE undoubtedly would not be applying for such names due to the rivers nor would they intend that the use of the TLDs be related to the rivers at all. Should we really have a policy that requires a letter of non-opposition by the relevant government for these names? Should the US government and/or the States of North Carolina, Virginia, or West Virginia have veto rights over whether .NEW should exist? Should Zimbabwe or Mozambique have veto rights over .SAVE? .NEW and .SAVE are not edge cases. There are hundreds of these kinds of terms that also happen to be geographic names. There is a Coffee City in Texas; Bath in the UK; etc.
Perhaps we should retain an expert in toponymy to educate us on the prevalence of these terms.
I do agree with Jorge that we need a framework that provides predictability, but that framework shouldn't be just giving veto rights to governments in all cases, which is what requiring letters of non-opposition would do in fact. We have to come up with a policy that takes into account generic/dictionary words that also happen to be geographic terms and the intended uses of such proposed TLDs.
Thanks.
Jon
On Apr 19, 2018, at 4:58 AM, Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au> wrote:
Hello Jorge
I really appreciated your insights. One thing I think needs further exploration is the notion of "interested applicants and the affected communities (which normally will be represented by different Government levels.”
I don’t think this is true as much as I would like it to be so. I think, in many jurisdictions, there are direct and very evident tensions between communities and their “governments” and we can see plenty of examples of that in global real politick. It is awkward indeed that ICANN new TLD evaluators *might *sometimes be in the business of making decisions about affected communities and applicants for new top level domains where governments may have explicit interests that are in direct conflict. The .africa example is a case in point.
What I don’t want to see is that a legitimate applicant for a top level domain would be punished/evaluated negatively because a government entity doesn’t agree with its position/entitlement/raison d’être. My “freedom of expression” colleagues will articulate these arguments better than I will do but we need to be aware that governments and communities’ interests do not necessarily intersect.
I am looking forward to hearing other views from WT5 members.
Liz
…. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au 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.
I am of the same view that @Liz expansion of restrictions on what
candidates may apply is a negative idea. Instead, we must work to expand the space of domain names according to end users. I think it is a democratic way to operate
On 19 Apr 2018, at 5:05 pm, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear all
If I may chime in… the 2012 round has shown that some names with geographic significance which were left out of the 2012 AGB rules on “geo names” have created and are still creating issues.
What is needed in my opinion is a framework that covers such names (to what level of granularity is something we would need to decide on) in order to create predictability and a fair say for the interested applicants and the affected communities (which normally will be represented by different Government levels).
As I have mentioned before, according to the available data (for instance the data circulated prior to the webinar organized in April 2017) the 2012 AGB requirement of a “non-objection letter” by the relevant public authorities worked well, as it created a good mix of incentives for applicants and relevant authorities to arrive at mutually accepted solutions for the delegation of the strings.
This by no means implies to take such names out of the pool of potential TLD. It just contributes in creating a framework for getting the right people at the table before the application is submitted and preempts many potential ex-post conflicts…
Best regards
Jorge
*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Javier Rua *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 19. April 2018 03:35 *An:* Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Geographic terms: additional categories
Great discussion, Liz & Renata.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511
twitter: @javrua
skype: javier.rua1
https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Apr 18, 2018, at 9:31 PM, Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au> wrote:
Hello Renata
You have raised some interesting wrinkles. The first is we mustn’t conflate the application for a domain name with intellectual property rights. My IP lawyer friends will have different views I am sure, but, a new top level domain can exist quite happily alongside any array of IP rights which may exist at the top level of the domain name system and at the second level in domain name registrations. For example, to use Jeff’s idea from this morning, .mars can exist alongsidewww.mars.com alongside www.marstheplanet.com and Jacqueline Mars (the woman whose family the company is named after). The issue is to be sure that consumers are not confused and that bad faith use is not allowed…
And to your second point, communities are not disadvantaged if they don’t apply for a domain name. Let’s use Murrumbidgee as the example. It may be that a community or group or geographic area are not interested and find different ways of expressing themselves on-line. That is fine. What isn’t fine is if they are constrained BEFORE they have even have a chance to decide. It is always annoying and expensive and time consuming if there is contention for a name…that is why there must be simple mechanisms to resolve that contention.
And to your last point. I think this issue is directly within scope for the consideration of this group. Governments have responsibilities around the setting of and implementation of public policy in their jurisdictions. However, in the context of new top level domain policy processes, government stakeholders are part of a much broader constellation of people whose views need to be considered…and we don’t need an international treaty for that to happen.
I hope that we can talk about this area in much more detail within the group.
Best wishes.
Liz
…. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au 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 19 Apr 2018, at 11:16 am, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Liz
This is a very important discussion and thanks for framing it simply. I am guessing the issue about the Aboriginal community being able to register the name is whether or not they will be competing against another company who trademarked that name and who could possibly sue them. And maybe they don't even register the domain name but create a handcraft company with the river name. In that sense, it is not about limiting the registration of a name but ensuring protection for communities which are left vulnerable if exclusive registration rights and associated IP rights are given to whoever first registers the name.
But this is probably out of the scope of WT5 since it deals with governmental objections and not unrecognized minority communities or treaties without a broader international intergovernmental acceptance.
Best,
Renata
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au> wrote:
Hello everyone
I wanted to refer back to our call this morning (Australia time) to provide some more examples about the nature of generic words that are also used for important geographic terms. I used three examples this morning which relate to our major river systems which is not dissimilar to the Amazon River example where the rivers flow through different states. In my example, the Murray, Darling & Murrumbidgee rivers are all significant geographic features. The first two are named after people; the third an Aboriginal word in the Wiradjuri language. The Murrumbidgee River flows through several distinct areas of Aboriginal land and forms part of the Murray River system.
We could extend the analysis by including Mount Kosciuszko National Park which includes our highest mountain (and from which the Murrumbidgee flows.) Again, named after a real person (whose name likely doesn’t fit as a good TLD label!) but, nonetheless, is one of our most significant geographic identifiers.
IF we were to conclude that a broader bucket of geographic identifiers (like rivers and places) were to somehow be constrained/limited/banned what purpose would that serve? For example, if the Aboriginal communities that live along the river and identify with that region, why wouldn’t they be welcome to apply for the name? The same could be said of landowners (like I was), tourist enterprises, naturalists, national parks, might also want to create a new “community” top level domain that they can use. The same could be said of the Murray/Darling examples.
There are many many other examples that this group could come up with which shows the way in which humans name geographic features that are intrinsic parts of their culture. From my personal perspective expanding any limitations on what applicants can apply for is a negative idea. Instead, we need to work towards enabling the expansion of the domain name space to suit end users.
And most importantly, we need simple steps (I think we need some schematic to show how this could work in practical evaluation) to understand how to deal with contention and to resolve that contention efficiently and fairly.
Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au 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.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-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
-- PaBLo Marshall
Liz, Thank you for your insights. And sorry for the WeBex related-problems today. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Apr 18, 2018, at 8:49 PM, Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au> wrote:
Hello everyone
I wanted to refer back to our call this morning (Australia time) to provide some more examples about the nature of generic words that are also used for important geographic terms. I used three examples this morning which relate to our major river systems which is not dissimilar to the Amazon River example where the rivers flow through different states. In my example, the Murray, Darling & Murrumbidgee rivers are all significant geographic features. The first two are named after people; the third an Aboriginal word in the Wiradjuri language. The Murrumbidgee River flows through several distinct areas of Aboriginal land and forms part of the Murray River system.
We could extend the analysis by including Mount Kosciuszko National Park which includes our highest mountain (and from which the Murrumbidgee flows.) Again, named after a real person (whose name likely doesn’t fit as a good TLD label!) but, nonetheless, is one of our most significant geographic identifiers.
IF we were to conclude that a broader bucket of geographic identifiers (like rivers and places) were to somehow be constrained/limited/banned what purpose would that serve? For example, if the Aboriginal communities that live along the river and identify with that region, why wouldn’t they be welcome to apply for the name? The same could be said of landowners (like I was), tourist enterprises, naturalists, national parks, might also want to create a new “community” top level domain that they can use. The same could be said of the Murray/Darling examples.
There are many many other examples that this group could come up with which shows the way in which humans name geographic features that are intrinsic parts of their culture. From my personal perspective expanding any limitations on what applicants can apply for is a negative idea. Instead, we need to work towards enabling the expansion of the domain name space to suit end users.
And most importantly, we need simple steps (I think we need some schematic to show how this could work in practical evaluation) to understand how to deal with contention and to resolve that contention efficiently and fairly.
Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au 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.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
participants (7)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Javier Rua -
Jon Nevett -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Liz Williams -
Nelson Imoa -
Renata Aquino Ribeiro