[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Wed Aug 8 05:40:27 UTC 2018


Dear all

May I recall some measures that I suggested before the European summer break?

Here they go again:

==
Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> Im Auftrag von Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 23:34
An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] suggested ideas for improving current system for cities

Dear all,

Reposting these ideas – it would be great to hear reactions, hopefully constructive ones ☺

==

Yesterday in the cross-community discussion there were ideas (some I proposed myself) such as
(1) setting a deadline for reacting to a letter of non-objection request;
(2) establishing that application may go forward if there is no reaction by the relevant pubic authority within that set deadline;
(3) helping the applicant in determining whether the intended string is a city name or not;  this could be done by an advisory body bound to confidentiality;
(4) creating greater predictability by deferring to local laws and policies defining what a “city name” is in each jurisdiction… something that in the age of big data should be rather simple…
(5) helping the applicant in identifying the relevant public authorities, and in establishing contact with them;
(6) establishing mediation or other dispute-resolution procedures when the applicant disagrees with the position taken by the relevant authority…
Etc.

These are all means to address some of the issues alleged on the functioning of the “non-objection”-letter framework, and to raise predictability and certainty for all parties, without breaking this model that in general (with some limited exceptions) worked well according to the reported data and facts.

Hope this may be helpful

Best

Jorge

==

These measures (mentioned in the context of non-capital city names) could IMO as well be helpful in dealing with the “non AGB geonames”…

Best regards

Jorge

Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> Im Auftrag von Nick Wenban-Smith
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. August 2018 07:34
An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Apologies if I don’t make the call tomorrow since I am currently on vacation (and if I do it will be with grumpy teenagers in the background!)

However I would echo Greg’s points here.

Below the level of capital cities there are an infinite range of perfectly legitimate uses for a TLD which might also have some geographical or cultural connotations.

I’ve listened to the calls and read the list comments and have yet to hear a good solution which is simple and could be explained to my teenage daughter which is my acid test for can something work.

Hence my view is to to stick more or less to the 2012 AGB.

Three reasons/ clarifications

1. The 2012 round was basically very successful and there are some prominent geo TLDs launched and some great exemplars of the mission to improve choice and competition for domains. Yes there were some problems in a tiny minority of cases but I think that is inherent with this sort of process. There were also problem cases in non geo terms too. Allocating a TLD is not that straightforward- hence the cost and complexity as we all know.

2. I do think that some sort of mediation process in the event of challenge including the option of making a reasonable change to the string you applied for. So if I apply for say .oxford and the town or university or govt or whom ever kick up a fuss then I could change it to .oxfordstreet or .oxfordsciencepark or .oxfordinstruments or .oxfordtriathlonclub or something to reduce the potential user confusion and make it more distinctive of the basis for my wanting it.

3.  The term ‘city’ itself in the 2012 AGB was never defined. I think that where an applicant states in its application that the purposes of the TLD include any sort of representation of a place or community then they should a) be expected to do some due diligence ahead of applying and therefore expect some push back from those places or communities and b) submit evidence of support from the places or communities they purport to be representing. If you’re clearly not representing a place or a community then there shouldn’t be a basis for blocking the application. (If that turns out to be false then the TLD applicant should rightly face compliance action and even potentially lose the TLD).

I would be glad to see any advance on the above and hope we can find some common ground.

Best wishes
Nick

Sent from my iPhone

On 6 Aug 2018, at 23:47, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
All,

Carlos wrote:

I just don't agree that the sole recommendation of WT5 that is going to be measure is a negative one: to restrict delegation of most geographic names. In my view recommendations should be framed in a positive manner, if possible.

This reminded me that we have so far talked almost exclusively about what are generally called "preventive" processes (reserve lists, permission requirements, blocking lists, etc.), and very little about what are generally called "curative" processes (objections, dispute resolution processes, challenge processes, etc.).  By doing so, we've taken half the tools out of the toolkit.

I just finished working on the reconvened IGO-INGO Preventive Rights WG where we were dealing (at this point) with reserving/restricting national Red Cross/Red Crescent society names.  In this case, a preventive rights approach made sense -- the names of the various national societies are essentially unique, identified only with that one entity, third party uses are almost certainly done in bad faith and with bad intent, and there's no real underlying policy disagreement.  In some cases (e.g., name collisions, certain reserved names) there is also a strong technical component.  This is how preventive rights have generally been used in ICANN policy -- for "slam-dunk" cases.

There are few, if any, "slam-dunk" cases in our work.  A good case can be made for 2-letter letter-letter combinations.  Perhaps a good case can be made for some of the remaining classifications in this first set or potential recommendations.  However, as we move "down the list", so to speak, we get further away from "slam-dunk" situations.  We could potentially make more headway on some of the classifications of names if we considered "curative" processes, instead of being so intensely focused on "preventive" rights.  This tends to turn our discussions into "all or nothing" choices -- but this is a false menu, since there are other options aside from the binary "all/nothing" that should be on the menu.

Let's keep this in mind as we move forward.

Greg



On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:34 PM Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
I agree with Paul and think we should declare agreement where we have it, and build on that to find other agreement down the line.  The process is supposed to involve incremental steps and building blocks along the way, and that is how we will eventually arrive at a consensus.  To take the “nothing until everything” approach will keep us spinning our wheels indefinitely, cause confusion, and risks unexpected results, which is in no one’s interest.

Best,
Robin

On Aug 6, 2018, at 2:16 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>> wrote:

I’m a little concerned with the “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” approach.  This isn’t a contract negotiation, it is a consensus building exercise.  If we have to wait until every topic has been discussed and we think we have 100% agreement on all topics before we take a consensus call on individual topics, this WG will never find an end point.

Best,
Paul



From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson
Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 4:09 PM
To: Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.


Dear Co-Leads and Martin:

I disagree with the method proposed.

1. It is premature to start consensus calls on certain restricted topics when other more critical topics have not yet been discussed.

2.  Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Regards

CW




El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 21:06 Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>> escribió:

Hi Christopher,

In order to progress the building of the Initial Report, the agenda is designed to focus on how we will achieve this and begin to gather recommendations where we find consensus. Item 4 was raised on the last call and members were requested to continue discussions over the email list, although this has been somewhat quiet probably due to holiday periods.

We encourage you to use the email list for elaborating on non-AGB categories, this will then help towards further discussions on the call. By experience of the discussions relating to non-capital cities, please provide a sound argument/rationale for any suggestions for the group to consider, rather than simply stating a request.

Kind regards,

Martin
Sent from my iPhone

On 6 Aug 2018, at 15:25, lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:

Dear Co-Leads:  May I request that point 4 of the proposed agenda be moved up to point 1.

Some participants, including myself, have only persevered with WT5 in-order to discuss the non-AGB terms.

These include :

-  all other geographical terms

-  geographical indications

-  several groups of regional, cultural, economic and linguistic names.

Thankyou and regards

Christopher Wilkinson
El 6 de agosto de 2018 a las 14:42 Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>> escribió:
Dear Work Track members,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:

1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates
2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan
3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names
4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms
5. AOB

On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5’s work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP’s Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.

As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5’s Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday’s call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472632128&sdata=me4M2xocdDENZhUf8U%2FfsplZO3q09h%2FivOZ%2FOORwgPE%3D&reserved=0>.

If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>.

Kind regards,

WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton







The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.



_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cda9292b392304e149c7208d5fbe0d831%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636691865472642136&sdata=RjHzvoI6NmIJQ%2BXmR83hNGqFTQN7mKvtLmiTbXf0jDg%3D&reserved=0>


________________________________
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180808/88474592/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list