RE: ccTLD as Brands

Michael,

Thanks - just to note that it is .gov.uk that is used by all levels of government in UK (not the other way round) as is common in other nations.

David



David Pullinger
Head of Digital Comms Policy
david.pullinger@coi.gsi.gov.uk
020 7261 8513 (voicemail not operational)
07788 872321

From: Aisenberg, Michael A. [mailto:maisenberg@mitre.org]
Sent: 04 January 2012 17:23
To: 'Gannon Dick'; Augusto Herrmann; eGov IG (Public)
Cc: Nitai Bezerra Silva; Christian Moryah Miranda
Subject: RE: ccTLD as Brands

I believe this assertion belies the different state of affairs re: ccTLD in the U.S.-i.e.-
.US is NOT used as the ccTLD.  .GOV is relied on by the Federal government, and many sub-Federal
Entities.  Non govt entities have full access to .US (I have several registrations in .US).  So, while the
U.S. DNS model is hardly controlling, it does serve as a model for many other nations.  Hence, e.g.  use of .UK.gov by many U.K.
Govt entities....
Michael

From: Gannon Dick [mailto:gannon_dick@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 6:33 PM
To: Augusto Herrmann; eGov IG (Public)
Cc: Nitai Bezerra Silva; Christian Moryah Miranda
Subject: ccTLD as Brands

All,

The code to test the "Country Branding" of domains is posted at http://www.rustprivacy.org/2012/cctld/

Three examples are worked for Brazil (National Government, a Local Government, and Non-Government-Commercial), but the data base has worldwide coverage.  My point is simply that protecting the Government Domain "Brand" in a transparent manner will help users, including other Governments to resolve Copyright issues with automated means.  The origin of the data holding is always clear because there is no benefit to misdirection or anonymity, not always the case with gTLD's.

--Gannon

________________________________
From: Augusto Herrmann <augusto.herrmann@gmail.com<mailto:augusto.herrmann@gmail.com>>
To: eGov IG (Public) <public-egov-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-egov-ig@w3.org>>
Cc: Nitai Bezerra Silva <nitai.silva@planejamento.gov.br<mailto:nitai.silva@planejamento.gov.br>>; Christian Moryah Miranda <christian.miranda@planejamento.gov.br<mailto:christian.miranda@planejamento.gov.br>>
Sent: Monday, January 2, 2012 4:14 AM
Subject: Re: W3C eGov: Licensing Discussion

Hello, and happy new year!

I'm a member of the Open Data team in the Ministry of Planning, Budget
and Management at Brazil. It's interesting to find this discussion
happening at this W3C list, as we have been discussing for the past
year what licensing to apply to open data. Following
opendatacommons.org<http://opendatacommons.org> guidelines, we have threaded this line:

* for content, CC-Zero [1] is the gold standard, CC-BY-SA [2] is acceptable..
* for data, PDDL [3] is the gold standard, DBCL [4] is acceptable.

We are still left with a few questions, which I know are a non-issue
for some countries, such as the USA, where the law mandates that
government data is in the public domain. But consider other countries
where this is not the case or where the law is not so clear. For
government content and data, what would be the advantages (for the
public or for the government) of going full public domain forsaking
the requirement of attribution? Maybe, when a third party
re-distributes the data, the lack of attribution gives the idea that
this distribution is not explictitly endorsed by government, is that
it?

On another question, a particular group of open data activists [5] in
our country have been arguing that public data has never needed a
license to be reused, that it's not in our culture. Indeed, most
public data released over the years by public bodies have not had an
explicit licensing associated with them. They ask: if we now begin to
require a license, what happens to the state of this already released
data? They also say that our newly stated Freedom of Public
Information Law does mandate that information shall be public as a
rule, and establish secrecy as an exception. But the question is: is
that enough? There hasn't yet been a review of this situation by
lawyers, especially under light of this new law. It may or may not be
the case that we still do need a license for open data. While we await
for one such legal review, we'd like to hear what has been the
situation and your experiences in other countries in regards to
licensing, in particular where the law is not so crystal clear about
it.

Best regards,
Augusto Herrmann
Open Data Team
Ministry of Planning, Budget & Management - Brazil

[1] http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/
[2] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/
[3] http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/
[4] http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/
[5] http://thacker.com.br/

On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Brand Niemann <bniemann@cox.net<mailto:bniemann@cox.net>> wrote:
> http://gov.aol.com/2011/12/23/creative-commons-licensing-government-data-and
> -services/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Holm, Jeanne M (1760) [mailto:jeanne.m.holm@jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:jeanne.m.holm@jpl.nasa.gov>]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 6:43 PM
> To: Phil Archer; eGov IG (Public)
> Cc: Anne Fitzgerald; Timothy Vollmer; Sarah Pearson
> Subject: W3C eGov: Licensing Discussion
>
> Hi all--
>
> Thanks to all involved, including speakers Anne Fitzgerald, Sarah Pearson,
> and Tim Vollmer (copied here), and to Bernadette Hyland for scribing and to
> Phil Archer for facilitating/scribing/logistics.
>
> Looking forward to meeting agenda suggestions for 17 January.  One thought
> is on the open source platforms around open government and open data.  Let
> me know your ideas!
>
> Our speakers did offer to answer a few follow up questions on the list
> serve, particularly given the time zone differences and that some could not
> attend today's meeting.  Please respond to this thread to carry forward the
> conversation!
>
> Thanks again and have a wonderful and joyous holiday and new year!
>
> --Jeanne
>
> **********************************************************
> Jeanne Holm
> Evangelist, Data.gov<http://Data.gov>
> U.S. General Services Administration
> Cell: (818) 434-5037
> Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn: JeanneHolm
> **********************************************************
>
>
>
>
> On 12/20/11 6:36 PM, "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>>The minutes of the eGov IG meeting are now available on the wiki at
>>http://www.w3.org/egov/IG/meeting/2011-12-20.
>>
>>We were joined by Tim Vollmer and Sarah Pearson from Creative Commons
>>in the US and Anne Fitzgerald from the University of Queensland - an
>>interesting discussion about licences and the public sector's attitudes
>>towards and uses of them.
>>
>>A big thank you to the guests!
>>
>>Phil.
>>
>>--
>>
>>
>>Phil Archer
>>W3C eGovernment
>>http://www.w3.org/egov/
>>
>>http://philarcher.org
>>@philarcher1
>>
>
>
>
>
>



This communication is confidential and copyright.
Anyone coming into unauthorised possession of it should disregard its content and erase it from their records.

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
On leaving the GSI this email was certified virus free.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information security products and services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk