[lac-discuss-en] Geographic Names at Second Level

Wed Jul 5 18:56:12 UTC 2017

For how long are we going to continue?

GAC Advice came out 2010
ccNSO worked from 2010-2014 with no policy result
AGB reserved them at the first level, but the new 2013 contracts gave them  away at the second level
ccNSO and GNSO worked from 2014-2017 with no consensus between the parties for a general framework
Subsequent Rounds created a WT5 last week in ICAN59......

Maybe it's about time that 
1) trademark law is not the only international law
2) GeoNames are NOT generic
3) GeoNames are small scale business  models that do not fit into ICANN's large scale commercial GDD

And we should be looking for a new approach

On July 5, 2017 12:28:29 PM CST, Lance Hinds <brainstreetceo at gmail.com> wrote:
>The fact of the matter is that in 2017 the geographic names, and their
>derivatives, should be regarded as critical assets for national
>development. Thoughtful policies therefore regarding the stewardship
>and
>protection of that asset must be implemented in support that overall
>goal.
>The CEO indicated during the meeting that he is open to continuing
>discussions on this issue. If the fundamental mandate of the at-large
>is
>the interests and/or protection of the average user, there is no
>question
>that this issue requires further deliberation on our part.
>
>My two cents
>
>Lance
>
>On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Carlton Samuels
><carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Dear All:
>> Allow me to share some facts from an incident.  Years ago, back in
>2009, a
>> media conglomerate based in Bermuda commissioned me to define and
>frame a
>> strategy to extend the analog yellow page telephone directory concept
>to
>> the digital and for the internet. All Caribbean countries were
>included;
>> they owned and published the entire lot, north to south, east and
>west,
>> every dot in the sea that had a public telephone system. We devised a
>plan
>> with a baseline requirement for domain names that 'made sense';
>portalize
>> them for traffic concentration, shaping, management and eventually,
>> exploitation.
>>
>> We discovered that Barbados, Jamaica, Cayman [Islands], Bermuda and
>> several others were already registered in the .com space. And the
>owners
>> were not connected in any way to the countries. This discovery lead
>to my
>> exploring the contours of the DNS marketplace for the first time.
>>
>> Since we were advising a commercial operation, we contacted the
>registrant
>> of record hoping to negotiate and conclude a commercial transaction
>for
>> transfer. Not a problem, they responded.  Starting price, US$1M for
>each.
>> The owners of the yellow page directories did not blink on price.
>Their
>> existing business model almost guaranteed them income once the
>telephone
>> number was listed. And up until then what they had was a license to
>mint
>> money; my estimate of the free cash generated across the entire set
>of
>> printed directories across the Caribbean was between US$40-$60M per
>annum.
>> End result is they did not take to the monetisation plan based on
>selling
>> ads from landings on the [portal] page. It was way to novel for them
>at the
>> time. So they said no to the entire plan.
>>
>> These domains are still owned by commercial interests without
>recourse to
>> official administration of countries  or ccTLD interests.  And some
>even
>> resolve and are used for exactly what we had intended. Any
>consideration we
>> give to geographic names at second level, be it 2-character or
>3-character,
>> will have to deal with these facts as they are.
>>
>> -Carlton
>>
>>
>> ==============================
>> *Carlton A Samuels*
>>
>> *Mobile: 876-818-1799 <(876)%20818-1799>Strategy, Planning,
>Governance,
>> Assessment & Turnaround*
>> =============================
>>
>> 2017-07-05 4:19 GMT-05:00 <aidanoblia at gmail.com>:
>>
>>>
>>> [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]
>>>
>>>  == utf-8? Q? _of_5_geogrnames = C3 = A1? _-_ New_pista_5? = =?
>Utf-8?
>>>  Desde: aidanoblia at gmail.com
>>>
>>>  According to Humberto's proposals, especially with regard to
>addressing
>>>  The issue from the point of view of the end user in our region.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Although I am not expert, the subject has worried to the community
>>> LACRALO,
>>>  Directly affected and was discussed a long time ago, with respect
>to a
>>>  Pair of specific cases, in relation to names of two characters of
>our
>>>  Region that referred to geographical areas.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Now at the GAC meeting with ALAC, ICANN 59,
>>>  More focused on new and three-character domain names,
>>>  Also presented on the screen a rather long questionnaire, in which
>>>  Sought to reach agreement on each question, although
>>>  Different positions.
>>>
>>>
>>>  The foundations were, on the one hand, the right of applicants to
>have
>>>  The domain name that they freely choose, on the other, the right of
>the
>>>  Internet users residing in the geographical areas
>>>  Respects their right to preserve such names for uses relating to
>the area
>>>  And in the interests of end-users
>>>  Could easily be confused about discriminating
>>>  Names correspond to official or governmental sites or companies or
>>>  People or issues relating to your location or region.
>>>
>>>
>>>  In principle and from my very modest point of view, as expressed in
>the
>>>  JNB meeting, this is something that is already confusing and causes
>some
>>>  Conflicts: different interests are at stake.
>>>
>>>
>>>  On the one hand: the interest of business and commerce in their
>freedom
>>> of
>>>  Choose domain names that are economically disadvantaged if they are
>>>  Limit their rights.
>>>
>>>
>>>  On the other hand, the rights of residents in the regions
>>>  Could be affected by commercial use, although as seen in JNB,
>>>  In some cases that may not be important for users in the region
>>>  Respectively. In this case, a consent was
>>>  The issue of whether or not to collect and how.
>>>
>>>
>>>  On the other hand, the interest of end users of
>>>  Internet, which could be confused, not only with reference to trade
>>>  Of goods and services.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  As set out in the ICANN Bylaws and its implementing rules,
>>>  Which must be defended by representatives of the interests of
>>>  The end users of internet is the interest of these.
>>>
>>>
>>>  The other commercial interests, defend themselves and thus
>>>  Made at that meeting.
>>>
>>>
>>>  I understand that another interest at stake is, according to the
>>> legislation of each
>>>  Country, the right of consumers, among other rights, not to be
>>>  Cause confusion, in relation to certain products or services that
>are
>>>  Offered on the net. This interest as consumers comes to be confused
>with
>>>  Many cases with those of the end user of the internet, with the
>>>  Whereas consumer protection is widely legislated in the
>>>  different countries. Although the meeting did not address the
>rights of
>>>  the consumers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Greetings to all
>>>  Aída
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  The 3 of July of 2017, 16:59, Vanda Scartezini
><vanda at scartezini.org>
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > Hola Alejandro.
>>> > Si no hay consenso en ninguna parte. Hay una posición más radical
>de
>>> unos
>>> > especialmente del GAC respecto nombres de dominio que puedan ser
>>> utilizados
>>> > como geográficos – preguntas surgen:
>>> > A) como se vá controlar esto, quien por ejemplo controlaria el
>“uso
>>> > geográfico” de un nombre como SPA – su localización en SPA ya
>mereceria
>>> ser
>>> > cualificado como uso geográfico y por lo tanto no aceptable?
>>> > El sub grupo 5 tiene la intención de discutir cuestiones como eta
>e
>>> > proponer una solución para cada punto
>>> > B) se uno tiene la marca SPA para seguir con el mismo ejemplo, la
>>> > comunidad de SPA tiene o no el derecho de utilizar su denominación
>>> > geográfica y seria esto una violation de una regra, si tal regla
>vier a
>>> > existir?
>>> > Etc.
>>> >  La idea de crear esto grupo mira solución a estos conflictos –
>por esto
>>> > mismo el grupo debe ser reduzido para lograr alcanzar un consenso.
>En
>>> > principio dentro de la cross community se piensa que puede ser una
>idea
>>> > razonable.
>>> > A ver lo que el GNSO concretamente piensa y se manda proseguir o
>no.
>>> >  Sigo en followup y vuelvo a ustedes.
>>> > Fuerte abrazo.
>>> >
>>> > A ti ALEx, conto que sentimos tu falta – el almuerzo del board con
>los
>>> > former members fue concentrado en recuerdos para ICANN history.
>Creo que
>>> > tienes mucho a contribuir. No olvides de enviar tus recuerdos de
>los
>>> > primeros tiempos para el staff Melissa King
><melissa.king at icann.org>
>>> > Abraços
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > *Vanda Scartezini*
>>> >
>>> > *Polo Consultores Associados*
>>> >
>>> > *Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004*
>>> >
>>> > *01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil*
>>> >
>>> > *Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 <+55%2011%203266-6253>*
>>> >
>>> > *Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 <+55%2011%2098181-1464> *
>>> >
>>> > *Sorry for any typos. *
>>> >
>>> > *HAPPY 2017!*
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > From: "lac-discuss-es-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org" <
>>> > lac-discuss-es-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of
>Alejandro
>>> > Pisanty <apisanty at gmail.com>
>>> > Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 16:16
>>> > To: "lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org" <
>>> > lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>> > Cc: LACRALO list <lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>> > Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-es] procedimientos posteriores
>seguimiento de
>>> 5
>>> > nombres geográficos - nueva pista 5
>>> >
>>> > Vanda,
>>> >
>>> > el mismo argumento de haberr estado en el tema desde 2010 invita
>>> también a
>>> > algunas consideraciones diferentes:
>>> >
>>> > 1. en fechas recientes pudimos observar que en LACRALO imperan
>puntos e
>>> > vista diversos y hasta opuestos sobre los ccTLDs y el control que
>éstos
>>> > deben tener sobre las combinaciones de caracteres similares a las
>de sus
>>> > nombres de dos y de tres caracteres; no se alcanzó un consenso;
>>> >
>>> > 2. sería pertinente que presentaras un informe acerca del estado
>de la
>>> > cuestión en general, y de los puntos que siguen sin resolver;
>>> >
>>> > 3. entre las organizaciones de LACRALO hay algunos conflictos de
>interés
>>> > en esta materia; por ejemplo, algunas organizaciones son también
>>> operadoras
>>> > de ccTLDs, otras tienen  intervenciones en el mercado de nombres
>>> genéricos,
>>> > y en otras los directivos son simuláneamente funcionarios públicos
>y
>>> > representantes nacionales ante el GAC;
>>> >
>>> > 4. sería conveniente que además de proponer tu propio nombre
>dieras a
>>> > conocer al menos dos alternativas, para poder analizar con
>libertad si
>>> > conviene más la continuidad o la rotación, y ciertamente para que
>al
>>> menos
>>> > un representante te acompañe en estas funciones con el objeto de
>>> > desarrollar la capacidad de que te substituya posteriormente.
>>> >
>>> > Lo mismo se aplica a otros grupos de trabajo y participantes. El
>grupo
>>> de
>>> > trabajo de gobernanza haría una gran contribución si estudiara el
>número
>>> > máximo de cargos simultáneos que puede servir un representante
>>> individual.
>>> >
>>> > Saludos cordiales,
>>> >
>>> > Alejandro Pisanty
>>> >
>>> > 2017-06-29 9:17 GMT-05:00 <vanda at scartezini.org>:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> [[--Translated text (en -> es)--]]
>>> >>
>>> >>  Asunto: procedimientos posteriores seguimiento de 5 nombres
>>> geográficos
>>> >> - nueva pista 5
>>> >>  De: vanda at scartezini.org
>>> >>
>>> >>  Queridos todos - No sé cómo se seleccionará cada región por lo
>que
>>> estoy
>>> >> agregando lACRALO lista para escuchar su opinión.
>>> >>  Me gustaría poner mi nombre como miembro de la &quot;región de
>>> LAC&quot;
>>> >> según lo sugerido por GNSO (no miembro formal de ALAC)
>>> >>  Gracias por su consideración
>>> >>  Esto es una propuesta de Jeff Neuman en este momento, y creo que
>es
>>> una
>>> >> idea divina, y esta idea hará que los grupos sean mucho más
>>> eficientes, más
>>> >> transparentes y tomen la opinión de cada región por ALAC, por los
>>> gobiernos
>>> >> ... para un proceso Para la pista 5 - la cruz de los nombres
>>> geográficos de
>>> >> la comunidad.
>>> >>  También estoy en el grupo de trabajo de seguimiento 1 sobre
>>> >> procedimientos subsiguientes.
>>> >>  Estoy saltar antes de la mano sólo porque después de esto desde
>2010
>>> he
>>> >> estado muy interesado en el tema.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>  gracias
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>  Vanda Scartezini
>>> >>  Polo Consultores Associados
>>> >>  AV.Paulista 1159, cj 1004
>>> >>  01311-200 - Sao Paulo, SP, Brasil
>>> >>  Línea terrestre: +55 11 3266.6253 <+55%2011%203266-6253>
>>> >>  Móvil: + 55 11 98181.1464 <+55%2011%2098181-1464>
>>> >>  Lo siento por cualquier error tipográfico.
>>> >>  ¡FELIZ 2017!
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [[--Original text (es)
>>> http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/fedae95d83.html
>>> --]]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> lac-discuss-en mailing list
>>> lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lac-discuss-en mailing list
>> lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Lance Hinds
>Chief Technology Officer
>BrainStreet Group
>287 'C' Albert St.
>Georgetown Guyana
>
>
>
>
>This message contains information that may be privileged and/or
>confidential and is the property of BrainStreet Technologies or
>BrainStreet
>Learning. The information contained herein is intended only for the
>individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to
>receive it . If you are not the intended recipient, you are not
>authorized
>to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or take  any
>action
>in reliance to the contents of this information or any part thereof and
>it
>may be unlawful to do so. If you receive this message in error, please
>notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message
>from
>your system. BrainStreet Technologies or BrainStreet Learning are
>neither
>liable for the proper and complete transmission of the information
>contained in this communication nor any delay in its receipt.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/attachments/20170705/7f2ddf38/attachment-0001.html>