[NCUC-DISCUSS] Cross Community Discussion/ Geographic Names at the Top Level Session II
farzaneh badii
farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
Thu Jun 29 15:06:42 CEST 2017
Correction, I meant not all ccTLD operators are governmental.
Farzaneh
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 9:05 AM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:
> I think technically no, but we as the GNSO do need to 'defend our turf'
> for want of a better phrase. Generic names should be defended as the
> exclusive purview of the GNSO, we can reach out to cc community on how to
> better run those, but for the purposes of policy that is our domain and we
> need to defend that.
>
>
> -James
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Ncuc-discuss <ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org> on behalf of
> Niels ten Oever <lists at digitaldissidents.org>
> *Sent:* 29 June 2017 13:59:49
> *To:* farzaneh badii
> *Cc:* NCUC-discuss
> *Subject:* Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Cross Community Discussion/ Geographic
> Names at the Top Level Session II
>
> 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
> <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 <farellfolly at gmail.com>>
> > > <mailto:farellfolly at gmail.com <mailto:farellfolly at gmail.com
> <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
> <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>
> > > <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
> > <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <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 <Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>>
> > <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> > <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <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 <Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>>
> > <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> > <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <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
> <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
> <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
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170629/08936991/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list