Hi Robin - thanks a lot for highlighting this. We should do a submission
and I'd like to help and provide comments.
While I agree it seems the GAC wishes to move from the GNSO policy and
process in the applicant guide book, this is in light of difficult
experiences through the first round. I agree, as others have noted, that
there are outstanding issues for governments that aren't resolved. For
example, governments are duty bearers and are obliged to act to protect
cultural and other rights where these are at risk - dotpatagonia is an
example. Many governments have the support of their citizens in
asserting these rights - so i do not think the process issue is clear cut.
I also do not think having a ban on names is the answer - and I want to
read the GAC paper to be better informed about their proposal. But
something is needed beyond simply a first past the post TLD application
process as we saw in the first round ....
The deadline is 31 October - will there be a discussion at the NCSG
policy meeting in LA?
Joy
On 4/10/2014 1:03 p.m., Remmy Nweke wrote:
> Dear Robin
> My fear is that this "GACitification" May result in creating a sort of lull
> in the uptake of gtld more so in geonames, at this time it would provide a
> certain level of checks for those who may like to be mischievous in like
> going about to trademark certain landmark names from the back?
>
> I support we do a comment too.
>
> What do ˙ou think?
> Remmy Nweke
> Lead Strategist
> DigitalSENSE Africa Media
>
> On Saturday, October 4, 2014, Kris Seeburn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I am quite in agreement with you Sam, to have a middle ground as it would
>> not serve any one party interest to try and go one way or the other. Your
>> process of reaching a consensus in the middle makes sense and i am quite
>> happy to see that.
>>
>> We have so many bad stories and issues that came up that has harnessed
>> such reactions. Although they may not be always the right things but the
>> case is there. I guess the best way through is to reach that mid way
>> between. I personally as you have mentioned do not see much of an issue on
>> National or regional interest on this case if it is done in a proper way to
>> ensure independence, legitimacy amongst the important things.
>>
>> For Africa for example the dotAfrica case and others we can readily go
>> about quoting. The community helps in making sure that the interests and
>> the policies are set straight but we all need to learn and make sure that
>> we do the right things. Too much power on one side would surely topple the
>> boat. So i like the idea that is proposed here.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 4, 2014, at 3:24 AM, Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>> wrote:
>>
>> This may be where I stick my foot in my mouth but I would like to suggest
>> a middle ground here. I see little gain from simply opposing any GAC
>> authority where geographic and similar gTLD names confront national
>> geographic sensitivities. The issue would not go away and there would be
>> the prospects of either ICANN simply saying "yes" to government requests,
>> or an endless series of one-gTLD-at-a-time trench fights involving ICANN,
>> constituencies, and individual national governments, trench fights with the
>> potential for considerable collateral damage all around.
>>
>> It of course makes sense to support a recommended consultation process
>> between potential applicants and national authorities. There also may be
>> merit to having individual governments convey their recommendations through
>> GAC, and not have individual governments make recommendations directly to
>> ICANN. In the case of government approval GAC would simply convey approval
>> to ICANN.
>>
>> In the case where government objects there may be some merit in GAC having
>> a short time frame review of the case, one that allows for submissions by
>> other stakeholders. If the GAC review does not change the individual
>> government's position, GAC conveys non-approval to ICANN.
>>
>> This process would have several merits. It recognizes the legitimacy of
>> national interests in geographic related gTLDs, in contested gTLDs it
>> allows for a second consultation within GAC, and it channels government
>> relations through GAC to ICANN. As well, it starts to generate a body of
>> case law like decisions that begin to set the boundaries on where national
>> geographic sensitivities come into play, and that evolves from within GAC,
>> and not from within ICANN, which should not be making decisions in this
>> area.
>>
>> As for worries that this area of geographic sensitivities would be used
>> against freedom of expression or to curb the activities of civil society,
>> while I always worry about governmental interference in the human rights of
>> people and peoples, I do not see this issue as a particular threat in that
>> area.
>>
>> Sam L.
>>
>>
>> Kris Seeburn
>> [log in to unmask] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>
>>
>> - www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
|
