Re: [council] Item 2 NC agenda

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

Philip,

The issue of geographic names is quite controversial, and
of concern to the ccTLD (the group is splitted on that matter, 
and uncomfortable). Below are some considerations of some
who consider that GAC communique bring an important message,
but probably only implementation of it should be considered
differently.

I respectifully disagree with determination of reasons
of the problem below:
   1. That while it understands the concerns of the GAC, caution 
      should be exercised to avoid a short-term reaction to 
      a problem that is not inherent to dot info but a function 
      of a restriction in the supply of domain names.

My understanding is that the GAC's wish to protect geographic domain
names is much more related to WHO gets that names, as they have
the utmost responsibility for public order, rather that to
any shortage of domain names (they probably do not care).

Let me explain in exemple.

There is nothing intrinsincly bad in say vietnam.info, it is good,
but what is important is who keeps it. I understand the GAC action
is all about that. What are chances of any people besides native 
English speakers or fluently English speakers from rich countries
and fast Internet to run in the "sunrise" casino contest to get it ?

So you have casino, the manager of casino, and at each "sunrise" game
it is yet another world colonisation (and in my exemple a possible
ransoming of Vietnamese to get their country names).

Now, it is quite possible that geographic or historic names be
taken not only for money, but also for political battles based on
those domain names. Which is directly a matter of public order,
therefore governmental prerogative.


As the bottom, I think that the proposed NC answer (item 1 and 3)
is not to the GAC question or GAC motivations. 
May I suggest we clarify governmental motivations ?
I agree with item 4.

Elisabeth