[NCUC-DISCUSS] Cross Community Discussion/ Geographic Names at the Top Level Session II

farzaneh badii farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
Thu Jun 29 15:04:24 CEST 2017


I certainly think it's a bad thing. They can force you to be a resident of
a region to register a domain name and there are certain governments I do
not want to see operating generic name TLDs and many more reasons which we
can explore of course. Of course not all CCNSOs are governmental and I
don't know where you are bringing your success rate from and how you
measure it. But I certainly don't want to see landgrab from gTLD space.

Farzaneh

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Niels ten Oever <
lists at digitaldissidents.org> wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170629/2ae8e9c5/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Ncuc-discuss mailing list