[NCUC-DISCUSS] Cross Community Discussion/ Geographic Names at the Top Level Session II
Niels ten Oever
lists at digitaldissidents.org
Thu Jun 29 14:59:49 CEST 2017
Do we think this is a bad thing per se?
Maybe ccTLDs are better at building TLDs than the ppl in the gTLD space,
especially if you look at the outcomes of the last gTLD round (largely
spam and defensive registration).
Best,
Niels
On 06/29/2017 02:34 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
> Hi
>
> This is about procedures for new gtlds and does not affect the already
> existing ones.
>
> The issue is some in GAC and CCNSO want to claim any name that is
> remotely related to the sovereign. The danger is that, they can claim
> some generic names too that happen to relate to a sovereign. If they are
> delegated the names, they will have whatever rule the sovereign wants
> for domain registration. It is certainly a landgrab. The plan is to grab
> as much as they can from gTLD space and move it to ccTLD space.
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Niels ten Oever
> <lists at digitaldissidents.org <mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org>> wrote:
>
> I liked the presentation of Jaap Akkerhuis when he presented to the GAC
> about this issue. The ISO list has a clear hierarchy, but this is not
> present in the DNS. There is a Berlin in Wisconsin, Idaho, Ohio, New
> Jersey, Maryland and Germany. Who should get it?
>
> And what happens to already allocated geonames such as .amsterdam,
> .berlin, .friesland, etc?
>
> The GAC has no model to solve this whatsoever, so am not so clear what
> they are pushing for. Or do they want to offer priority in the auction
> process to geographies? I would not necessarily be against that. Or did
> I miss something?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Niels
>
>
>
> On 06/29/2017 01:49 PM, hfaiedh ines wrote:
> > We are currently attending the session. If you have any opinions or
> > questions you would like me to transmit please don't hesitate.
> >
> > On Jun 29, 2017 11:05, "Farell Folly" <farellfolly at gmail.com <mailto:farellfolly at gmail.com>
> > <mailto:farellfolly at gmail.com <mailto:farellfolly at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Farzaneh,
> >
> > You are totally right.. I attended the 1st meeting few days ago and
> > I will attend the one of the afternoon. Discussions are very
> > serious. I would like to work on that.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > @__f_f__
> >
> > Computer Security | Internet of Things
> > https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf>
> > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf>>
> > ________________________________.
> > Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
> >
> > Le 29 juin 2017 10:21, "farzaneh badii" <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> > <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
> <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>> a écrit :
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I think as the noncommercial group we have not paid enough
> > attention to the issue of Geographic names at the top level.By
> > claiming sovereignty over Geo names, governments will
> claim the
> > Geo names. If we do not wake up and get active, we will not be
> > able to rescue the generic names that happen to be Geo
> names as
> > well.
> >
> >
> > Today there will be a cross-community session and they will
> > discuss various important issues but some of the questions are
> > important and I recommend NCUC members attend the session. I
> > have attached the agenda and some of the questions that
> will be
> > addressed are copied below:
> >
> > 17:00 Key Geo Names Issues to Address in the PDP
> >
> > 1. What makes a string a “geographic name”?
> >
> > 2. When can a geographic name:
> >
> > ● Be applied for;
> >
> > ● Be delegated to a particular applicant?
> >
> > 3. If there are simultaneous applications for a geographic
> name,
> > how should this be
> >
> > resolved?
> >
> > 4. How could “geographic use” be distinguished from
> “generic use”?
> >
> > 5. How can commitments to restrict a TLD to non-geographic use
> > be monitored and enforced?
> >
> > Best
> >
> >
> > Farzaneh
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>>
> >
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> <http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>
> > <http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> <http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>>
> > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> <http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>
> > <http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> <http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> <http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>
> >
>
> --
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
>
> Article 19
> www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org>
>
> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> <http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>
>
>
--
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital
Article 19
www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list