[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
Marita Moll
mmoll at ca.inter.net
Fri Jul 20 18:34:47 UTC 2018
I agree that the names of large cities should be protected in the same
way as capital cities are protected and I like the idea of creating a
pro-rated system for important cities in smaller countries. I would like
to get on with the specifics of this idea -- where should the cut off
be, can we use the work of other organizations (U.N.?) to set baselines,
etc. We had some of those discussions early on, but now I think we are
stalled.
My question is: is there enough support in this group to move ahead on
this and how will we know?
Marita
On 7/20/2018 1:44 PM, Kris Seeburn wrote:
> Alex
>
> Sounds like a pretty good way forward. Perhaps as you say population
> size should also be based on the country applying as some are also
> islands and may not be having a large population like New York, Paris
> and loads of others.
>
> kris
>
>> On Jul 20, 2018, at 21:22, Alexander Schubert
>> <alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>> wrote:
>>
>> 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 <mailto: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.
>> Kind regards,
>> Julie
>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kris Seeburn
> seeburn.k at gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k at gmail.com>
> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
>
> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180720/b3c5a715/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 51490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180720/b3c5a715/KeepItOn_Social_animated-0001.gif>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list