[NA-Discuss] Fwd: [CPWG] Your Valuable Input Requested - At-Large GeoNames Survey

Thu Feb 27 19:33:46 UTC 2020

I don't think I've heard the term "libertarian" used  to describe my views
on anything.

I wouldn't confuse my indifference with an explicit stand against
regulation or gaining consensus. In my perfect world. popular geo names
might be run by foundations that can accommodate the needs of any present
or future use of the name. So flipping my previous example, I am against
giving .cordoba to the richest or fastest applicant, to the detriment of
other locations with the same name.  But that's part of a deeper problem I
have with ICANN's re-invention of the way that words can be privately owned.

Compare the way domain names are allocated to the way trademarks are done:
- if you don't use it, you lose it
- applications for trademarks can be rejected for strings that are too
generic or are in common use by others

A discussion of this goes far deeper to the core of what I think is
fundamentally wrong with the way ICANN works, but geonames is one of the
use cases where ICANN's model really shows its weaknesses. IMO there are no
good answers using the current rules, and I guess I might actually prefer
to go full anti-libertarian and say that a geoTLD can't be allocated
without approval of all entities currently using the name.

Now, that's my view -- but it's not IMO one worth fighting for because the
whole allocation regime is a corrupt systematic mess anyway, and any
sensible approach will be gamed to death. As you know I think the whole
global demand for "memorable" domain names is overblown in these days of
apps and QR codes and search engines, so my only real remaining concerns
are in harm (ie, abuse) minimization.

I'll put these views into the survey as best as I can.  As for the
questions that ask "is this scenario likely?", I'm at a loss to answer
because I can't read the minds of those who spend their livelihoods
thinking of ways to stretch boundaries to their limits and beyond.

- Evan

On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 13:56, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
wrote:

> Thanks, I didn’t catch that. Evin, let’s make sure and change option 2 to
> “Bad.”
>
>
>
> EvAn, remember this is not about second level domains. It’s about first.
> So .ALPS, .MARA, .EUGENE, etc. You might still not care but I wanted to
> clarify. There ARE questions in there that would reveal your more
> libertarian view on the topic, for sure.
>
>
>
> *From: *NA-Discuss <na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf
> of Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
> *Date: *Thursday, February 27, 2020 at 10:51 AM
> *To: *Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *NA Discuss <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: [CPWG] Your Valuable Input Requested -
> At-Large GeoNames Survey
>
>
>
> I think there's a flaw in the survey.
>
>
>
> The range of "goodness"measured for a few scenarios is
>
>
>
> 1 - Very bad
>
> 2 - Not bad
>
> 3 - Neural/don't care
>
> 4 - Good
>
> 5 Very good
>
>
>
> At least in the way I use the terms .... "not bad" is equivalent to
> "good", so choice 2 and 4 are identical.
>
>
>
> I think you mean that choice 2 should just be "Bad"
>
>
>
> FWIW, I personally don't care at all about protecting geo names except for
> within the ccTLDs of where those names are located. I'm fine with
> protecting both cordoba.es and cordoba.ar, but I don't care at all what
> happens to cordoba.anythingelse and don't believe they need to ask
> permission.
>
>
>
> Not sure how that sentiment gets conveyed in the survey.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 17:35, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> For those of you that follow/participate the CPWG
> <https://atlarge.icann.org/working_groups/consolidated-policy-working-group-cpwg>
>  (At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group)
>
> work please fill out the following survey.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> -ed
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: *Evin Erdogdu* <evin.erdogdu at icann.org>
> Date: Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:54 AM
> Subject: [CPWG] Your Valuable Input Requested - At-Large GeoNames Survey
> To: cpwg at icann.org <cpwg at icann.org>
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Following up from the Single Issue Call on SubPro GeoNames
> <https://community.icann.org/x/4xyJBw> yesterday, please take a few
> minutes to provide valuable input via the At-Large GeoNames Survey:
>
>
>
> https://forms.gle/r4jKyCzWtAXXdX3o7
>
>
>
> The results of the survey may be discussed on the follow-up Single Issue
> Call on SubPro GeoNames, to be scheduled in the near future.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Evin
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or
> subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named
> addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use,
> disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by
> mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
>
> ------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
>
> @evanleibovitch or @el56
>

-- 
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
@evanleibovitch or @el56
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/attachments/20200227/cd08e7c5/attachment.html>