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

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>