Sorry for the off-list exchange by mistake.
Nicolas
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC proposal to ban top level domains that
use a geographic word unless permission granted from govt (next rounds
of gtlds)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 16:42:55 +0100
From: Seun Ojedeji <[log in to unmask]>
To: Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]>
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
On 06/10/2014 10:59 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> The problem is that governments are supposed to act via
> passage of laws and treaties. But governments cannot agree on
> the issues surrounding geographical indicators and hence there
> is no applicable law at the global level. Where there is no
> law, there should be no global constraints on what ICANN or
> the users do. A claim of “sensitivity,” an inherently
> subjective term, must not be transmuted into global
> regulations just because ICANN can get away with it. If
> governments want globally applicable constraints on those
> kinds of names, let them pass and ratify international
> treaties. If they can’t, then they must stop attempting to use
> ICANN as a back door regulator.
>
> I think its quite difficult to give a blanket statement like this.
> One could argue what global law restricted .us or .ng for instance
> to ccTLD. I think the fact that ccTLD (govt) can exercise their
> sovereignty at national level should make it extended to lower
> level. I won't see a reason why lagos govt should not have right
> over .lagos for instance.
>
Well, one obvious problem would be because there are multiple Lagos
governmental instances!!
Okay and you think it won't be multiple if a non-governmental
organisation gets .lagos instead?
I suggest that we are way better serve with a lagos.ng and a
lagos.pt <http://lagos.pt> than by a blanket "right" for "gvmntal"
jurisdiction to have their unused parked name-in-the-gTLD-space.
Ofcourse this makes sense especially is no one else will be applying and
administering .lagos
Does that make sense? What's wrong with SLDs? They are the natural
place for Lagoses of this world to end up, are they not? Same goes
for patagonia.ar <http://patagonia.ar>
Yeah i agree but inline with my reservation above
Cheers!
> I think a balance needs to be struck in a way that govt will not
> end-up claiming all the possible tld strings[1]
>
> Cheers!
> 1. Maybe restricting to states names only (and not town/city
> names) may be feasible
>
> --MM
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Sam
> Lanfranco
> *Sent:* Friday, October 3, 2014 7:24 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC proposal to ban top level
> domains that use a geographic word unless permission granted
> from govt (next rounds of gtlds)
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> /Seun Ojedeji,
> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
> Mobile: +2348035233535
> //alt email:<http://goog_1872880453>[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>/
>
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
//alt email:<http://goog_1872880453>[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>/
The key to understanding is humility - my view !