[NCUC-DISCUSS] Cross Community Discussion/ Geographic Names at the Top Level Session II
Niels ten Oever
lists at digitaldissidents.org
Thu Jun 29 15:25:02 CEST 2017
On 06/29/2017 03:04 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
> I certainly think it's a bad thing. They can force you to be a resident
> of a region to register a domain name
I think the important word here is _can_.
gTLD registries can also have ridiculous demands for registration (think
for instance back to the presentation about .pharmacy yesterday)
> 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.
Would be great to see the different arguments.
Currently I find James' argument most compelling: ccTLDs are delegated
to from the ISO list, and that's it.
> 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.
I am not that territorial. We should be thinking of the end-user, no,
not territorial fights, right?
Cheers,
Niels
> Farzaneh
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Niels ten Oever
> <lists at digitaldissidents.org <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>>
> > > <mailto: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>>
> > > <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>>
> > > <mailto: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>>
> > <mailto: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>>
> > > <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>>
> > <mailto: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>>
> > > <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>>
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Niels ten Oever
> > Head of Digital
> >
> > Article 19
> > www.article19.org <http://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>
> <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>>
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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
>
>
--
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