[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018

[Alexander Schubert]

Hi group,

during the last call and in its chat were some serious conflations of facts. Let me explain the fact base on the floated examples of “.bingo”, “.paris” and I am adding “.clearwater” (“Clearwater” being a placeholder for any “city” like “Clearwater” in Florida which has 100k+ inhabitants, is probably know by every single American and every single German, might be confused with “unspoiled water” – but Google finds obviously ONLY city related content.)

We had a new gTLD round. It was in 2012 – applicants had to follow the rules of the application guidelines for it. That’s our base. The rules are quite specific and it would be nice if group members read them at least ONCE (the chat contributions made it painful clear that not everybody here has read the city related new gTLD policies of the 2012 AGB).



*       BINGO:
If in 2012 some brand or generic term applicant had applied for .bingo and there would be a non-capital city “Bingo”; that city would NOT have to be asked for Government support if .bingo was declared as non-geo use application! The notion that every city “Bingo” had to be asked for permission is ridiculous and bares any fact basis. 

*       .paris:
Any applicant for any city or brand “PARIS” would have been required to get the approval of the French Capital. To my understanding if the geo-use was intended then from all other places that qualify as “city” as well! We might look into the formulation “relevant Government” and “associated with the city name”: Paris Texas has 25k people, is a city, and the city’s name is “Texas”. To my understanding any application that declares geo-use (even if by the French capital) they would have had to acquire Government support from Paris, TX as well (please discuss, please correct me if you identify evidence to the contrary). I do not see that the French capital was prioritized over Paris, TX. 

*       .clearwater:
In the call somebody questioned why “The City” (some city) had any fundamental issues if a gTLD like “.clearwater” (which I use as a fictional example for any small city) was applied for by e.g. a beverage company with a brand “CLEAR WATER”.
I am not going to speak on behalf of cites (as in “government bodies”): maybe some GAC member could do that! I am caring about the CONSTITUENTS in that city! The businesses. The People! The organizations. It is THOSE who have a potentially terrible loss: YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME. It can’t be that the marketing desire of a beverage brand tops the freedom of expression and identity of tens or worse HUNDREDS of thousands of citizens!

 

So all in all: Brands and generic applicants faced more or less ZERO “resistance” in the 2012 AGB – as they could always claim the non-geo use. What is being discussed currently (and yes for full disclosure: I am the initiator of that idea):

*       In the 2012 AGB we already eliminated the non-geo use for capitals and 3166 Alpha-2 regions!

*       BIG cities are as important – and too many people and stakeholders would suffer from city name grabbing on top-level in the DNS

*       The solution is to elevate at least sizeable cities to the protection level of capital cities!

*       A cut-off measure has to be defined – e.g. population size

 

 

Thanks,

 

Alexander Schubert






 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 12:10 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018

 

Dear Work Track 5 members,

 

Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (11 July).  These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted on the wiki. 

 

See also the attached slides as well as the Working Document at:  <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRUXAo/edit> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRUXAo/edit. 

 

Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180720/64b013c0/attachment.html>