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

Fri Jul 20 18:56:53 UTC 2018

+1 seems a very good argument to me

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com> 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>
> 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
> <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/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJ
> sKyWX8WZXRUXAo/edit.
>
> Kind regards,
> Julie
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kris Seeburn
> 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/20180720/0ba40b10/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/20180720/0ba40b10/KeepItOn_Social_animated-0001.gif>