Fwd: [CPWG] Your Valuable Input Requested - At-Large GeoNames Survey
For those of you that follow/participate the CPWG <https://atlarge.icann.org/working_groups/consolidated-policy-working-group-c...> (At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group) work please fill out the following survey. Thanks. -ed ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org> Date: Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:54 AM Subject: [CPWG] Your Valuable Input Requested - At-Large GeoNames Survey To: cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> Dear All, Following up from the Single Issue Call on SubPro GeoNames <https://community.icann.org/x/4xyJBw> yesterday, please take a few minutes to provide valuable input via the At-Large GeoNames Survey: https://forms.gle/r4jKyCzWtAXXdX3o7 The results of the survey may be discussed on the follow-up Single Issue Call on SubPro GeoNames, to be scheduled in the near future. Thank you, Evin _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- *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 think there's a flaw in the survey. The range of "goodness"measured for a few scenarios is 1 - Very bad 2 - Not bad 3 - Neural/don't care 4 - Good 5 Very good At least in the way I use the terms .... "not bad" is equivalent to "good", so choice 2 and 4 are identical. I think you mean that choice 2 should just be "Bad" FWIW, I personally don't care at all about protecting geo names except for within the ccTLDs of where those names are located. I'm fine with protecting both cordoba.es and cordoba.ar, but I don't care at all what happens to cordoba.anythingelse and don't believe they need to ask permission. Not sure how that sentiment gets conveyed in the survey. On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 17:35, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:
For those of you that follow/participate the CPWG <https://atlarge.icann.org/working_groups/consolidated-policy-working-group-c...> (At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group) work please fill out the following survey.
Thanks.
-ed
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org> Date: Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:54 AM Subject: [CPWG] Your Valuable Input Requested - At-Large GeoNames Survey To: cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org>
Dear All,
Following up from the Single Issue Call on SubPro GeoNames <https://community.icann.org/x/4xyJBw> yesterday, please take a few minutes to provide valuable input via the At-Large GeoNames Survey:
https://forms.gle/r4jKyCzWtAXXdX3o7
The results of the survey may be discussed on the follow-up Single Issue Call on SubPro GeoNames, to be scheduled in the near future.
Thank you,
Evin _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- *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. ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch or @el56
Thanks, I didn’t catch that. Evin, let’s make sure and change option 2 to “Bad.” EvAn, remember this is not about second level domains. It’s about first. So .ALPS, .MARA, .EUGENE, etc. You might still not care but I wanted to clarify. There ARE questions in there that would reveal your more libertarian view on the topic, for sure. From: NA-Discuss <na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Date: Thursday, February 27, 2020 at 10:51 AM To: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: [CPWG] Your Valuable Input Requested - At-Large GeoNames Survey I think there's a flaw in the survey. The range of "goodness"measured for a few scenarios is 1 - Very bad 2 - Not bad 3 - Neural/don't care 4 - Good 5 Very good At least in the way I use the terms .... "not bad" is equivalent to "good", so choice 2 and 4 are identical. I think you mean that choice 2 should just be "Bad" FWIW, I personally don't care at all about protecting geo names except for within the ccTLDs of where those names are located. I'm fine with protecting both cordoba.es<http://cordoba.es> and cordoba.ar<http://cordoba.ar>, but I don't care at all what happens to cordoba.anythingelse and don't believe they need to ask permission. Not sure how that sentiment gets conveyed in the survey. On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 17:35, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com<mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>> wrote: For those of you that follow/participate the CPWG<https://atlarge.icann.org/working_groups/consolidated-policy-working-group-c...> (At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group) work please fill out the following survey. Thanks. -ed ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org<mailto:evin.erdogdu@icann.org>> Date: Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:54 AM Subject: [CPWG] Your Valuable Input Requested - At-Large GeoNames Survey To: cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Dear All, Following up from the Single Issue Call on SubPro GeoNames<https://community.icann.org/x/4xyJBw> yesterday, please take a few minutes to provide valuable input via the At-Large GeoNames Survey: https://forms.gle/r4jKyCzWtAXXdX3o7 The results of the survey may be discussed on the follow-up Single Issue Call on SubPro GeoNames, to be scheduled in the near future. Thank you, Evin _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- 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. ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch or @el56
I don't think I've heard the term "libertarian" used to describe my views on anything. I wouldn't confuse my indifference with an explicit stand against regulation or gaining consensus. In my perfect world. popular geo names might be run by foundations that can accommodate the needs of any present or future use of the name. So flipping my previous example, I am against giving .cordoba to the richest or fastest applicant, to the detriment of other locations with the same name. But that's part of a deeper problem I have with ICANN's re-invention of the way that words can be privately owned. Compare the way domain names are allocated to the way trademarks are done: - if you don't use it, you lose it - applications for trademarks can be rejected for strings that are too generic or are in common use by others A discussion of this goes far deeper to the core of what I think is fundamentally wrong with the way ICANN works, but geonames is one of the use cases where ICANN's model really shows its weaknesses. IMO there are no good answers using the current rules, and I guess I might actually prefer to go full anti-libertarian and say that a geoTLD can't be allocated without approval of all entities currently using the name. Now, that's my view -- but it's not IMO one worth fighting for because the whole allocation regime is a corrupt systematic mess anyway, and any sensible approach will be gamed to death. As you know I think the whole global demand for "memorable" domain names is overblown in these days of apps and QR codes and search engines, so my only real remaining concerns are in harm (ie, abuse) minimization. I'll put these views into the survey as best as I can. As for the questions that ask "is this scenario likely?", I'm at a loss to answer because I can't read the minds of those who spend their livelihoods thinking of ways to stretch boundaries to their limits and beyond. - Evan On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 13:56, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Thanks, I didn’t catch that. Evin, let’s make sure and change option 2 to “Bad.”
EvAn, remember this is not about second level domains. It’s about first. So .ALPS, .MARA, .EUGENE, etc. You might still not care but I wanted to clarify. There ARE questions in there that would reveal your more libertarian view on the topic, for sure.
*From: *NA-Discuss <na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> *Date: *Thursday, February 27, 2020 at 10:51 AM *To: *Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> *Cc: *NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: [CPWG] Your Valuable Input Requested - At-Large GeoNames Survey
I think there's a flaw in the survey.
The range of "goodness"measured for a few scenarios is
1 - Very bad
2 - Not bad
3 - Neural/don't care
4 - Good
5 Very good
At least in the way I use the terms .... "not bad" is equivalent to "good", so choice 2 and 4 are identical.
I think you mean that choice 2 should just be "Bad"
FWIW, I personally don't care at all about protecting geo names except for within the ccTLDs of where those names are located. I'm fine with protecting both cordoba.es and cordoba.ar, but I don't care at all what happens to cordoba.anythingelse and don't believe they need to ask permission.
Not sure how that sentiment gets conveyed in the survey.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 17:35, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:
For those of you that follow/participate the CPWG <https://atlarge.icann.org/working_groups/consolidated-policy-working-group-c...> (At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group)
work please fill out the following survey.
Thanks.
-ed
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: *Evin Erdogdu* <evin.erdogdu@icann.org> Date: Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:54 AM Subject: [CPWG] Your Valuable Input Requested - At-Large GeoNames Survey To: cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org>
Dear All,
Following up from the Single Issue Call on SubPro GeoNames <https://community.icann.org/x/4xyJBw> yesterday, please take a few minutes to provide valuable input via the At-Large GeoNames Survey:
https://forms.gle/r4jKyCzWtAXXdX3o7
The results of the survey may be discussed on the follow-up Single Issue Call on SubPro GeoNames, to be scheduled in the near future.
Thank you,
Evin
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
--
*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.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
--
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
@evanleibovitch or @el56
-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch or @el56
"the whole allocation regime is a corrupt systematic mess anyway..." I can see the "systematic mess" part of this. I'm not sure I agree, but I can see it. But "corrupt" really ought to be unpacked a little. Do you have a specific example of corruption you can share? Bill Jouris On Thursday, February 27, 2020, 11:34:49 AM PST, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote: I don't think I've heard the term "libertarian" used to describe my views on anything. I wouldn't confuse my indifference with an explicit stand against regulation or gaining consensus. In my perfect world. popular geo names might be run by foundations that can accommodate the needs of any present or future use of the name. So flipping my previous example, I am against giving .cordoba to the richest or fastest applicant, to the detriment of other locations with the same name. But that's part of a deeper problem I have with ICANN's re-invention of the way that words can be privately owned. Compare the way domain names are allocated to the way trademarks are done:- if you don't use it, you lose it- applications for trademarks can be rejected for strings that are too generic or are in common use by others A discussion of this goes far deeper to the core of what I think is fundamentally wrong with the way ICANN works, but geonames is one of the use cases where ICANN's model really shows its weaknesses. IMO there are no good answers using the current rules, and I guess I might actually prefer to go full anti-libertarian and say that a geoTLD can't be allocated without approval of all entities currently using the name. Now, that's my view -- but it's not IMO one worth fighting for because the whole allocation regime is a corrupt systematic mess anyway, and any sensible approach will be gamed to death. As you know I think the whole global demand for "memorable" domain names is overblown in these days of apps and QR codes and search engines, so my only real remaining concerns are in harm (ie, abuse) minimization. I'll put these views into the survey as best as I can. As for the questions that ask "is this scenario likely?", I'm at a loss to answer because I can't read the minds of those who spend their livelihoods thinking of ways to stretch boundaries to their limits and beyond. - Evan On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 13:56, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: Thanks, I didn’t catch that. Evin, let’s make sure and change option 2 to “Bad.” EvAn, remember this is not about second level domains. It’s about first. So .ALPS, .MARA, .EUGENE, etc. You might still not care but I wanted to clarify. There ARE questions in there that would reveal your more libertarian view on the topic, for sure. From: NA-Discuss <na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Date: Thursday, February 27, 2020 at 10:51 AM To: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: [CPWG] Your Valuable Input Requested - At-Large GeoNames Survey I think there's a flaw in the survey. The range of "goodness"measured for a few scenarios is 1 - Very bad 2 - Not bad 3 - Neural/don't care 4 - Good 5 Very good At least in the way I use the terms .... "not bad" is equivalent to "good", so choice 2 and 4 are identical. I think you mean that choice 2 should just be "Bad" FWIW, I personally don't care at all about protecting geo names except for within the ccTLDs of where those names are located. I'm fine with protecting both cordoba.es and cordoba.ar, but I don't care at all what happens to cordoba.anythingelse and don't believe they need to ask permission. Not sure how that sentiment gets conveyed in the survey. On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 17:35, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote: For those of you that follow/participate theCPWG (At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group) work please fill out the following survey. Thanks. -ed ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org> Date: Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:54 AM Subject: [CPWG] Your Valuable Input Requested - At-Large GeoNames Survey To: cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> Dear All, Following up from theSingle Issue Call on SubPro GeoNames yesterday, please take a few minutes to provide valuable input via the At-Large GeoNames Survey: https://forms.gle/r4jKyCzWtAXXdX3o7 The results of the survey may be discussed on the follow-up Single Issue Call on SubPro GeoNames, to be scheduled in the near future. Thank you, Evin _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- 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. ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch or @el56 -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada@evanleibovitch or @el56------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 14:40, Bill Jouris <b_jouris@yahoo.com> wrote:
But "corrupt" really ought to be unpacked a little. Do you have a specific example of corruption you can share?
Hi Bill, Corruption is IMO built into the "inmates running the asylum" model of ICANN governance -- actually made worse with the withdrawal of the US government -- where there's no such thing as conflict of interest so long as you declare. - Evan
participants (4)
-
Bill Jouris -
Eduardo Diaz -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jonathan Zuck