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

Sun Aug 19 23:20:35 UTC 2018

I object to calling this feature a “loophole.”  That is both prejudicial
and incorrect as well.  What we have is a reasonable limit on the Consent
right that was given to non-capitol cities in the prior round.

>From an end-user perspective, there is no presumption that a geo-use is
superior to any other possible use of a given string.

>From a city perspective, nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a
city to apply for a string related to their city name.  We are just not
reserving numerous possibilities exclusively for their choice when or if
they look into the idea of a TLD.  And we are not reserving “inventory” for
private businesses that consult in the geo-name space.  That would truly be
outside our remit.

Best regards,

Greg

On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:

> I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large
> cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants.
>
> It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a
> collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be
> disadvantaged, if it came to a contest.
>
> I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical.
> It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it,
> on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world.
>
> Marita
>
> On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
>
> Dear WT,
>
>
>
> Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any
> of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these
> codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or
> a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the
> air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT
> the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and
> not one big company can pollute it just to make more money.
>
> And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!):
> That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names)
> are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective
> countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand.
>
>
>
> Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities
> that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process
> as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective:
>
> People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational
> entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence
> we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in
> Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example
> to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being
> German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely
> important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities
> obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a
> Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set
> up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what
> to do – but that’s another issue).
>
> I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German
> State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German
> Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important
> identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and
> “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That
> the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily
> available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to
> aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s).
>
> I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and
> all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE,
> Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them.
>
> And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and
> I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are
> attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY
> identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the
> citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern.
>
>
>
> But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the
> degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166
> Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such
> application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments
> who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to
> allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments
> some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF.
>
>
> *Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about
> contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want
> to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a
> brand, or a small geo entity*. Examples:
>
> ·        A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people
> city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”?
>
> o   Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka:
> either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or
> they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them.
>
> ·        A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded
> and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city
> of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S.  city, even if small). Say their Major
> has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such
> application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture”
> would use a loophole here!
>
> o   As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities
> provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if
> there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their
> application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they
> can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These
> applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE!
>
>
>
> City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands
> and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents!
> A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak”
> – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The
> worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of
> support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If
> such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a
> city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD!
> GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from
> exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can
> help. But if they are in different countries?
>
> We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in
> sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or
> country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large
> geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the
> “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need
> a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use).
> Even  if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people
> cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At
> least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use
> city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city
> destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice
> identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as
> 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc).
>
> Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM
> registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in
> contention with a sizeable city:
> If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such
> city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection”
> (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that
> they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated?
> Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY
> chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your
> position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a
> brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in?
>
> We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see
> that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes:
> in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage
> of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were
> capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals
> but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to
> pay more attention.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Arasteh
> *Sent:* Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35
> *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com> <mike at rodenbaugh.com>
> *Cc:* Edmon <edmon at dot.asia> <edmon at dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> <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 All
>
> Yes they are valuable for those countries too
>
> There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing
> for merely commercial and brand purposes
>
> Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss .
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
>
> That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and
> yet are reserved for no legitimate reason.  Countries certainly don't own
> LL codes that don't correspond to current countries.  And they also don't
> "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because
> they are on that list.
>
>
>
> It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to
> all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back
> into the mix as well.
>
>
>
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
>
> RODENBAUGH LAW
>
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
>
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <
> Nick.Wenban-Smith at nominet.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike
>
>
>
> Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in
> total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO
> 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and
> territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in
> any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no
> reasons whatsoever’.
>
>
>
> Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short
> form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL
> combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from
> any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this
> point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall
> under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO
> policies.
>
>
>
> If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a
> substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there.
>
>
>
> I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital
> cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses.
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh
> *Sent:* 10 August 2018 03:35
> *To:* Edmon <edmon at dot.asia>
> *Cc:* leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <
> 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.
>
>
>
> Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites:  "This memo
> provides information for the Internet community. This memo
>
>    does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."
>
> Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue
> imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the
> mix.  That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names,
> reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
>
>
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
>
> RODENBAUGH LAW
>
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
>
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon at dot.asia> wrote:
>
> IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also.
> Edmon
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com>
> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00
> To: Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org" <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.
>
> What purpose does that distinction serve anyone?  I think it is meaningless
> and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable
> two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle.
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert <
> alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:
>
> > Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
> >
> > I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check
> > ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt) cemented the one and only real differentiator
> > in the DNS:
> > That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority  (which may be
> > deligated like in .tv)  of countries/nations. And that these are two
> > character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
> >
> > If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working)
> > BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character
> > gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
> >
> > The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be
> > uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Alexander
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my Samsung device
> >
> >
> > -------- Original message --------
> > From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange at norid.no>
> > Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00)
> > To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul at gutierrez.se>
> > Cc: 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.
> >
> > Hi Carlos
> >
> > Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some
> > 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically
> > be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had
> > from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Annebeth
> >
> >
> > Annebeth B Lange
> > Special Adviser International Policy
> > UNINETT Norid AS
> > Phone: +47 959 11 559
> > Mail: annebeth.lange at norid.no
> >
> >
> >
> > 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <
> > carlosraul at gutierrez.se>:
> >
> > My comments to today's call:
> >
> > 1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process
> > should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested
> > parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country
> and
> > territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a
> > forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if
> > it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW
> > suggested.   A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version?
> How
> > about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties,
> > such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future
> > countries or territories.”  Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving
> ALL
> > two character letter letter” combinations-  can be enhanced.  I wonder if
> > it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential
> > combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow?
> I
> > can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we
> could
> > tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support
> to
> > move forward.
> >
> > 2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo
> > names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear
> > rationale is added to the recommendation
> >
> >
> > 3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion
> > has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic
> and
> > other social  elements, ,like Apache Nation
> >
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> > carlosraul at gutierrez.se
> > +506 8837 7176
> > Aparatado 1571-1000
> > COSTA RICA
> >
> >
> >
> > El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
> >
> > Dear Work Track members,
> >
> >
> >
> > Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations
> > shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes
> > clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more
> > substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
> >
> >
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Emily
> >
> >
> >
> > *From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> on
> > behalf of Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org>
> > *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45
> > *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> > *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call
> > on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=
> >
> > .
> >
> >
> >
> > If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an
> > apology, please email 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
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> >
> > <Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
> >
> > <Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> > 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
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> 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/20180819/d9176f2f/attachment-0001.html>