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

Fri Jul 20 19:49:39 UTC 2018

A similar argument to what Alexander suggested, Kris.

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 9:39 AM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com> wrote:

> I was rethinking this and a way forward could be at this point taking
> capitals/cities into a second round. We still need to think business models
> as well. So at this point in time we could move Geonames to the three
> letter ISO and also country names in full as set out in ISO / UN
> recognition as well.
>
> The population size could be very well thought of in a second phase of
> this workings. The longer we take to get to the other bits we may be
> stalling the whole process as well.So my take is get the first of these
> moving ahead. I was stating islands as i can take Seychelles has an overall
> population as a country of around 95,000 so imagine it’s capital “VICTORIA”
> or it’s other main Hub “MAHE”. There are also other countries or Islands we
> may have to think and cater for.
>
> So my suggestion is to take into consideration the population size for
> sure but perhaps add a second variable which would be the country itself.
> Big countries in general may understand that you cannot just use or take
> names of capitals or other cities just like that without Govt approval. But
> the issue remains the awareness that needs to go down to ensure the
> required understanding.
>
> So perhaps two variables should be (1) population (2) country - legitimacy
> — perhaps that may go better with GAC as well as many others.
>
> My two cents.
>
> On Jul 20, 2018, at 22:56, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> +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/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FH
>> St6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRUXAo/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"
>>
>> <KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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"
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180720/d7bc2ce2/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/d7bc2ce2/KeepItOn_Social_animated-0001.gif>