Carlos,
With regard to this:
> ... The point is to preserve the
>names from commercial use (or misuse) for a number of different reasons,
>not to compete for the names.
We need not address the substance of this claim (or even name it explicitly
in the statement) -- it is indeed controversial, whatever side one comes
down on. Those possible reasons are *not* what is being objected to in the
statement -- the effort is being made (following Avri's formulation) to
*avoid comment* on any such substantive issue, while still commenting on
process.
The point is, what standing can a *government* have in the dispute process
to make the claims for nongovernmental communities of interest based on
*whatever* reasons may be at issue? And if there *is* some way that a
government can reasonably claim such standing (I make no judgment on that
matter here -- I honestly haven't thought it through in depth), then how
should that governmental standing compare to other claims of standing?
(My answer would be: no special privilege for governmental standing, or for
any other standing. But let's see some good reasons for governmental
standing in the first place.)
This comes back to older discussions about ad hoc process, which I think we
are generally in agreement to oppose, yes?
No matter the substance of the issue, we should be able to agree that we
don't want to give GAC any special preemptory role in policy-making and
dispute resolution at ICANN, especially in the form of some sort of
last-minute veto power or even fully-substitutional preemption. To allow
oneself to be co-opted by an outcome in supporting a dysfunctional process
would be unfortunate in the least. Can't you understand the ad hoc process
here as constituting a "poison pill" in your quest for a particular outcome
in this case? You could get your one specific payoff, at the cost of
wrecking the whole system.
So again, let's not talk about the substance of the dispute. For the
purposes of this statement, it should be essentially irrelevant. We're
talking about the structure of the dispute process, not about any
particular disputes to be processed. The system is the thing. And then if
the system works, then work the system when you have an issue that is
important to you. But don't allow the system to be distorted for one
specific outcome. That is far too high a price to pay for what would be a
small victory in the greater scheme of things.
Let's talk about governmental standing to represent nongovernmental
community interests -- is there international law to support such claims?
Or, is "international law" perhaps not really the appropriate logical tool
to apply to this argument? Maybe this point belongs in a different
category than the "international law" category? (Because international law
may not apply equally to all possible claims of standing in the dispute
process.)
Dan
--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
At 9:42 AM -0300 5/12/13, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>Grande Jorge, be careful with logic... it may work in computer
>programming, not always in the real world. The point is to preserve the
>names from commercial use (or misuse) for a number of different reasons,
>not to compete for the names.
>
>There is also a case against .pharmacy which is worth looking into.
>Geographical/culturally representative names are not the only ones being
>challenged.
>
>Regarding .rio, the domain name holder will simply be Rio (the state and
>the city govs).
>
>ICANN generated a big imbroglio in partnering with domain speculators in
>the quest for money through this new gTLDs program, and the imbroglio is
>getting deeper. And this is creating unnecessary divisions in several of
>the ICANN communities -- unfortunately, including the non-commercial ones.
>
>I am BTW worried that the Chehadé administration is creating a very
>sophisticated "new ICANN" (which is not bad in itself), but for what
>exactly (which is not good)?? The impression I gather is that the new
>ICANN admin thinks the gTLD market bonanza will last forever -- maybe
>the US$187 million collected with the first gTLD run has allucinated the
>organization... I think he should start thinking about new services and
>products the sophisticated structure he is creating should aim at if he
>wants to perpetuate it.
>
>fraternal regards
>
>--c.a.
>
>On 05/12/2013 04:03 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>> If there is so much "community interest," why the "community" didn't
>>apply for the string on the first place ? Case example .RIO
>>
>> But I agree with you, the key issue here is the "process" given that
>>while for example Patagonia is locally recognized as a region, it is not
>>listed on ANY international standard, but is registered as a trademark
>>not only as an international trademark but also as a national recognized
>>trademark in Argentina.
>>
>> Then based on what international law you will deprive the applicant for
>>using the name when they followed all the guidelines for the application ?
>>
>> -Jorge
>>
>> On May 12, 2013, at 1:45 AM, Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there any way to make the point about international law without
>>> specifying these two cases per se?
>>>
>>> And, is the role of (international) trademark law in these cases really
>>> pertinent to the disputes? There may be other claims on a string
>>> (communities of interest) that do not have trademarks relating the string
>>> because they are not well-defined business corporations per se. I don't
>>> know that we want to imply any special *privilege* of trademarks above and
>>> beyond other forms of standing, though I certainly wouldn't want to
>>> specially *denigrate* them by comparison, either. But other forms of
>>> standing may not be supported directly by explicit international law, and I
>>> wouldn't want to imply that those forms of standing were somehow
>>> "second-class" in the dispute process.
>>>
>>> Can we refer to this purely in terms of process, and not in terms of
>>> substantive detail or outcome? How does a government claim standing to
>>> represent communities of interest that are distinct from its own national
>>> institutional standing? And should a government's claim to standing in
>>> such disputes trump all other claims? I think the point is that each case
>>> should considered "bottom up" on its own merits, and that a government
>>> position should not preempt the fact-based evaluation in any *privileged*
>>> manner.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>> PS: As for the use of the word incredible, that sentence and the next could
>>> be combined into one as follows: "The GAC proposal to make registrars and
>>> registries authoritative licensing validation entities for 200
>>> jurisdictions and an innumerable number of sectors and professions is not
>>> realistically feasible." Is it worth adding anything about "due process"
>>> here? (That is, R&R's do not have institutional capacity to replace ex
>>> post judicial due process with any sort of ex ante judgment.)
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
>>> not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 12:36 AM -0300 5/12/13, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>>>> I have checked with Flavio and others, and we agree with Kathy's
>>>> proposal. I think Flavio has made clear why we see it as problematic.
>>>>
>>>> --c.a.
>>>>
>>>> On 05/09/2013 10:09 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>> As we move towards a common denominator, I support not including
>>>>> anything in the statement about .amazon and .patagonia (just as Milton
>>>>> has graciously agreed not to include anything on closed generics).
>>>>> Best, Kathy
>>>>>
>>>>> :
>>>>>> I haven't seen any statements from civil society organizations from
>>>>>> South America supporting the approval of the .amazon and .patagonia
>>>>>> applications. Exact on the contrary. Civil society in South America is
>>>>>> definitely against the approval of these applications, as you can see,
>>>>>> for example, from the list of organizations signing the document sent
>>>>>> by Carlos Afonso in a previous message. Let's stop assuming that this
>>>>>> is just a matter of governments and "empty political statements".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a few cases, governments may reflect the position of the civil
>>>>>> society ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Flavio
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've not seen yet any valid argument or study from the Argentinean
>>>>>>> government why .patagonia should not be approved, not that I'm in
>>>>>>> favor but claiming ownership or sovereignty with empty political
>>>>>>> statements IMHO has no weight in the evaluation process and the board
>>>>>>> can disregard the GAC advice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with Milton that because government X say so is not a solid
>>>>>>> argument to deny an application.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Jorge
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On May 9, 2013, at 4:01 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While I agree with most of the doc, I do not agree (along with many
>>>>>>>> civil society orgs & movements) with the arguments in the
>>>>>>>> paragraph mentioning .amazon and .patagonia. Please leave these
>>>>>>>> arguments to the commercial interest groups.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> fraternal regards
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sent from a dumbphone
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9 May 2013, at 14:18, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree. These are solid comments and NCSG should endorse them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks very much, Milton, for the difficult work of drafting and
>>>>>>>>> re-drafting to incorporate the views of others.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On May 9, 2013, at 10:49 AM, McTim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Today in domain incite the writer starts his blog post with:
>>>>>>>>>>> " For the last few weeks I've been attempting to write a sensible
>>>>>>>>>>> analysis of the Governmental Advisory Committee's advice on new
>>>>>>>>>>> gTLDs without resorting to incredulity, hyperbole or sarcasm"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what I felt when I took on the task!!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So it took him a few weeks to work it out of his system. Can you
>>>>>>>>>>> all forgive me - or perhaps respect me - for taking only one week?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have revised the GAC comments. They are tamer. They eliminated
>>>>>>>>>>> one mistake that Kathy pointed out to me. the bow to division
>>>>>>>>>>> within NCSG regarding closed generics. But they still drive home
>>>>>>>>>>> what are absolutely essential points that MUST be made, and
>>>>>>>>>>> made strongly, in this important comment period. Please take a
>>>>>>>>>>> fresh look.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d6GT0zqLjU6e7Js-TE2Gjlm_-B5xvhE5CrRPZSV3oV4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am happy with the re-write in terms of tone and substance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is important that we make a solid statement about this to the
>>>>>>>>>> Board, as it gives them political "cover" to say no to the GAC.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> McTim
>>>>>>>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is.
>>>>>>>>>> A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>>>>>
>>
|
