+1

Thank you Wolfgang!

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8335 2487
Enviado desde mi iPhone

> El 7/10/2014, a las 5:24, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <[log in to unmask]> escribió:
> 
> Hi
> 
> as Adam has proposed it makes sense to go back to history and the guidebook.
> 
> One of the early attemps - back in 2007 - was to consider a "Request for Comment" on GEO-TLDs. We discussed this at length during the 2007 ICANN Meeting Puerto Rico followed by another session during the IGF 2007 in Rio de Janeiro (I moderated both session). http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/sanjuan2007/node/35.html // http://nic.berlin/de/pressemitteilung/dotberlin-als-ideengeber-beim-internetgipfel-der-vereinten-nationen (in German, english IGF Website has been removed)
> 
> The idea of a GEO RFC (similar to the ccTLD RFC) was not further considered and also rejected by the board. One Argument was that a new RFC would take too much time and lead to a delay of the start of the new TLD program. Another attemp to introduced "categories" (inter alia GEOs and brands) was made during ICANNs Nairobi Meeting (2008).  
> 
> The result is now known and we are seeing the consequences of some mistakes. 
> 
> I understand Milton Approach when he argues that if there is "no internaitonal treaty or national law than ICANN can act according to the guidebook (with all ist deficiencies). However this is only partly true becvause numerous countries have national legislation with regard to the use of geographical names. And ICANN - according to ist Articles of Incorpotation - is obliged to repsect "international treaties and national legislation". 
> 
> What is the way out? In my eyes the Dilemma offers an opportunity to start a truly bottom up and open multistakeholder RFC-like process to find rough Consensus on the basis of "running code" (as the guidebook, some GAC advices and the experiences/contracts with the already existing GEO-TLDs, from .cat to .Berlin and .london).  I do not see any alternative to such a bottom up collaborative approach. Otherwise we end up in a GEO-TLD-War with GAC advice and voting of the board ans protest by the GNSO and GAC Board consultation and rejecting advice with a supermajority and endless (and costly) legal procedures in the US and efforts to bring this issue to the ITU Plenipot in Busan or to th UN General Assembly. You have to have a reasonable procedure in place to tak on board all the legitimate positions of the various stakeholders. A good opportunity to enhance the multistakeholder model. 
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
> TheTn my eyes  there is no way out w(I moderated the sessionathe drafting the 
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von Adam
> Gesendet: Di 07.10.2014 09:11
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC proposal to ban top level domains that use a geographic word unless permission granted from govt (next rounds of gtlds)
> 
>> On Oct 7, 2014, at 3:51 PM, William Drake wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 7, 2014, at 2:54 AM, joy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ban on names is not the answer, nor is a veto: but some legitimate process for dealing with conflicting or competing rights remains needed
>> 
>> +1.  Geo has always been one of the more interesting fault lines within our tribe and civil society more generally, and when we have some head space post-LA it might be worth trying to have a more focused conversation as to what such a process might entail.  Would provide an opportunity to seriously engage with GAC as well, which could be useful.  It's sort of odd that in the ICANN space CS and governments have little real communication, whereas in other global IG spaces we talk and even work with them a lot.
>> 
> 
> Might be helpful to begin with a reminder of what the applicant guidebook says on geo names, how arrived at (if people remember?), and what's been a problem with actual applications (Patagonia not covered by provisions of the guide book, and it was govt I think that had final say on the rules.)  The Paris France / Paris Texas problem was considered, though I don't remember how it was resolved.  
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
>> Bill