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