[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
Greg Shatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Tue Jul 24 05:24:48 UTC 2018
I'd like to pick up and expand on one thing that Paul said: "we have to
stop trying to create rights for governments that they haven’t even
legislated for themselves. ICANN is not the place to introduce new
legislation – the community has enough trouble on our hands just trying to
get ICANN’s policies in alignment with actual laws. It doesn’t do us any
good to cook up compliance with non-existent laws – thus over engineering
the next round and setting it up for confusion disputes, and extra costs."
The flip side is true as well -- we have to stop denigrating rights that do
exist and using incorrect, inflammatory language while doing so. Alexander
shouts in all caps "YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME" when discussing a
"beverage brand" applying for the TLD "Clearwater" (a term that is also the
name of a city (population 114,000)). Squatting is an incredibly
pejorative term. Here's one definition of "SQUATTING", from
Wikipedia: cybersquatting
is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with *bad-faith
intent to profit *from the goodwill of a trademark *belonging to someone
else*. More generally, "squatting" means the practice of inhabiting someone
else's property without their permission. This definition is similar to
the one in the U.S. Anticybersquatting Protection Act (ACPA).
On that basis, a declaration that "YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME" is
tantamount to an accusation that any trademark owner with a brand
coincident with a city name is violating the law, engaging in bad faith
intent, seeking to make a profit to which they are not entitled,
free-riding on the work and reputation of others. Perhaps some other
meaning of "squatting" was intended, but my own understanding and the other
definitions I reviewed seem pretty consistent.
This is obviously factually wrong. Trademark rights are protected by law
throughout the world and by at least two international treaties (Paris and
Madrid). Trademark owners have legitimate rights, and any TLD application
would be in furtherance of those rights -- clearly a "good faith" action
based on a right "belonging to them." Any argument premised on the idea
that trademark owners are "squatting" is doomed to lose, since it has no
basis in fact or law.
It is also extreme, insulting and polarizing. Continuing in this vein will
be unhelpful. It is certainly unpersuasive and not conducive to
compromise, and without persuasion and compromise there is no hope for
consensus.
Furthermore, this is not just about trademarks. It is not really about
trademarks at all. It's about giving one potential applicant or applicants
a superior privilege denied to any other potential applicant of any other
type. But it goes further than that -- it gives non-applicants the
privilege of deciding whether an applicant (of any type) can proceed, or if
there are multiple applicants, which one can proceed. (This is one way in
which Paris, France was privileged over Paris, Texas, since Paris, France
was granted an absolute privilege, while Paris, Texas was only granted a
contextual privilege.) I use the word "privilege" purposefully, since it
would be incorrect and confusing to call it a "right" (because that would
imply that it is based on an objective, externally-created right).
I'll reiterate my earlier suggestion that we first look at the range of
processes. A process that occurs at the very beginning of the application
life-cycle and that gives one or a group of parties a reservation over a
name if they ever wish to exercise it and veto power over others without
any need to prove their own claim (much less the superiority of their claim
over the claims of others) is at the extreme end of the spectrum of
processes. Such processes should be saved for the most extreme of
concerns, where it is objectively clear that the
"reservation-holder"/"veto-holder" has a unique claim to the term, and any
user of the term is beyond a reasonable doubt acting in bad faith.
(Consider, for example, the full names of national Red Cross societies.)
Less extreme processes should offer more opportunities to develop new ideas
and ultimately, consensus.
Best regards,
Greg
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 6:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Dear Alexander,
>
> Thank you very much for the message,
>
> As usual you have logic in your insight.
>
> May I ask some question in line of your message please
>
> These are:
>
> *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.*
>
> Comments
>
> In the example give;if Paris city in France provide its agreement but
> paris city in Texas disagrees, then how to proceed?
>
>
>
>
> *· .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!*
>
> Comment
>
> I concour with your arguments
>
>
>
> *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*
>
> Comments
>
> What are criteria to determine the seizable cities,?The seizability is not
> limieted to population only, Historical heritage, cultural values are also
> to be taken into account.
>
> Small cities of today which heritated from large or super large cities of
> several hundres years ago should also be taken into account
>
> In greater Persia, cities such " Shoush", "Parargad", " Ekbatan","
> Perpolis "and and arae examples of those cutural and historical heritage.
>
> The situation is old continents and new continents are different as far as
> geographic names are concerned.
>
> We need to find a middle ground criteria and basis to decide on the matter.
>
> Brand and commercial interest should not compromise historical ,social and
> cultural heritage.
>
> I am not defending any government's position I am merely talking about
> interests of the peole .
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 11:55 AM Kavouss Arasteh <
> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Alexander,
>>
>> Thank you very much for the message,
>>
>> As usual you have logic in your insight.
>>
>> May I ask some question in line of your message please
>>
>> are
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 12:23 AM Brian Winterfeldt <Brian at winterfeldt.law>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 in support of Paul’s statement.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Brian
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>>
>>> Brian J. Winterfeldt
>>>
>>> Principal
>>>
>>> Winterfeldt IP Group
>>>
>>> 1200 17th St NW, Ste 501
>>>
>>> Washington, DC 20036
>>>
>>> brian at winterfeldt.law
>>>
>>> +1 202 903 4422
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 20, 2018, at 4:02 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Alexander.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just to clarify the record, I didn’t suggest in the call that .bingo had
>>> to seek approvals from all those cities in the last round. It was
>>> introduced as an example of how ridiculous this can get if we go down the
>>> slippery slope of expanding censorship in the top level any further than it
>>> has already been extended. Perhaps something was lost in the translation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regarding Paris, there are dozens of places that bear that name (which
>>> originated in Greek mythology, by the way, and not in France). I’ve copied
>>> them at the end. Under a strict reading of the AGB from the last round, an
>>> applicant would have had to get a letter from the government of each of
>>> these places. A very silly rule.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regarding your “Clearwater” place holder, let’s swap in Toledo instead.
>>> Toledo, Spain has been around since about the time of Christ and currently
>>> has a population of 83,000. Toledo, Ohio, has been around only since 1833
>>> but has a population of nearly 651,429, many times that of the little
>>> city in Spain. This is not even to mention the over a dozen other places
>>> named Toledo. Your suggestion that a GAC rep may speak for the people of
>>> such cities implies that there would be some GAC approval process, again
>>> for dozens of places, none of which has any more right to the word “Toledo”
>>> than the next place. So your “Clearwater” scenario is named exactly
>>> backwards– it muddies the waters, it doesn’t clear them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> None of the above scenarios lead to simplicity or predictability, two of
>>> our core principles.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, thanks to Maureen who proposes “(1) population (2) country –
>>> legitimacy”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Toledo is a great example of Ohio being the largest Toledo but Spain
>>> being the oldest. So, Toledo, Ohio would “win” which means free speech
>>> would win since Toledo, Ohio is located in a jurisdiction that prevents
>>> governments from stifling the speech of its citizens. But does that make
>>> Toledo, Spain any less legitimate? The answer, in my mind, is “no” since
>>> neither place has any legitimate claim to the word “Toledo” sufficient to
>>> keep it from being written as a top level domain name.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Folks, I think we have to stop trying to create rights for governments
>>> that they haven’t even legislated for themselves. ICANN is not the place
>>> to introduce new legislation – the community has enough trouble on our
>>> hands just trying to get ICANN’s policies in alignment with actual laws.
>>> It doesn’t do us any good to cook up compliance with non-existent laws –
>>> thus over engineering the next round and setting it up for confusion
>>> disputes, and extra costs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Places[edit
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edit§ion=3&editintro=Template:Disambig_editintro>
>>> ]
>>>
>>> *Canada*[edit
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edit§ion=4&editintro=Template:Disambig_editintro>
>>> ]
>>>
>>> · Paris, Ontario <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Ontario>,
>>> a community
>>>
>>> · Paris, Yukon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Yukon>, a
>>> former community
>>>
>>> *United States*[edit
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edit§ion=5&editintro=Template:Disambig_editintro>
>>> ]
>>>
>>> · Paris, Arkansas <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Arkansas>,
>>> a city
>>>
>>> · Paris, Idaho <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Idaho>, a
>>> city
>>>
>>> · Paris, Illinois <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Illinois>,
>>> a city
>>>
>>> · Paris, Indiana <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Indiana>,
>>> an unincorporated community
>>>
>>> · Paris, Iowa <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Iowa>, an
>>> unincorporated community
>>>
>>> · Paris, Kentucky <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Kentucky>,
>>> a city
>>>
>>> · Paris, Maine <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Maine>, a
>>> town
>>>
>>> · Paris, an unincorporated community in Green Charter Township,
>>> Michigan
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Charter_Township,_Michigan>
>>>
>>> · Paris, Mississippi
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Mississippi>, an unincorporated
>>> community
>>>
>>> · Paris, Missouri <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Missouri>,
>>> a city
>>>
>>> · Paris, New Hampshire
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_New_Hampshire>, an unincorporated
>>> community
>>>
>>> · Paris, New York <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_New_York>,
>>> a town
>>>
>>> · Paris, Portage County, Ohio
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Portage_County,_Ohio>, an
>>> unincorporated community
>>>
>>> · Paris, Stark County, Ohio
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Stark_County,_Ohio>, an
>>> unincorporated community
>>>
>>> · Paris, Oregon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Oregon>, an
>>> unincorporated community
>>>
>>> · Paris, Pennsylvania
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Pennsylvania>, a
>>> census-designated place
>>>
>>> · Paris, Tennessee
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Tennessee>, a city
>>>
>>> · Paris, Texas <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Texas>, a
>>> city
>>>
>>> · Paris, Virginia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Virginia>,
>>> an unincorporated community
>>>
>>> · Paris, Wisconsin (disambiguation)
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Wisconsin_(disambiguation)>,
>>> several Wisconsin localities
>>>
>>> · Paris Township (disambiguation)
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Township_(disambiguation)>,
>>> several US localities
>>>
>>> · Beresford, South Dakota
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beresford,_South_Dakota>, a city
>>> formerly called Paris
>>>
>>> · Loraine, California
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loraine,_California>, an unincorporated
>>> community formerly called Paris
>>>
>>> · Paris Mountain, South Carolina - see Paris Mountain State Park
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Mountain_State_Park>
>>>
>>> · Paris Mountain <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Mountain>,
>>> Virginia
>>>
>>> *Other*[edit
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edit§ion=6&editintro=Template:Disambig_editintro>
>>> ]
>>>
>>> · Paris, Denmark <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Denmark>,
>>> a hamlet in Jutland
>>>
>>> · Paris, Kiribati <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Kiribati>,
>>> in the central Pacific Ocean
>>>
>>> · París, Herrera
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par%C3%ADs,_Herrera>, Panama, a
>>> *corregimiento* or subdistrict
>>>
>>> · Paris Basin <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Basin>, a
>>> geological region of France
>>>
>>> · Paris Peak <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peak>, Anvers
>>> Island, Antarctica
>>>
>>> · 3317 Paris <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3317_Paris>, a minor
>>> planet named after the legendary figure of the Trojan War
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Belize*[edit
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=2&editintro=Template:Disambig_editintro>
>>> ]
>>>
>>> · Toledo District <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_District>
>>>
>>> · Toledo Settlement
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_Settlement>
>>>
>>> *Brazil*[edit
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=3&editintro=Template:Disambig_editintro>
>>> ]
>>>
>>> · Toledo, Minas Gerais
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Minas_Gerais>
>>>
>>> · Toledo, Paraná
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Paran%C3%A1>
>>>
>>> *Colombia*[edit
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=4&editintro=Template:Disambig_editintro>
>>> ]
>>>
>>> · Toledo, Norte de Santander
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Norte_de_Santander>
>>>
>>> *Philippines*[edit
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=5&editintro=Template:Disambig_editintro>
>>> ]
>>>
>>> · Toledo, Cebu <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Cebu>
>>>
>>> *Spain*[edit
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=6&editintro=Template:Disambig_editintro>
>>> ]
>>>
>>> · Taifa of Toledo <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taifa_of_Toledo>
>>> (1010-1085)
>>>
>>> · Kingdom of Toledo
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Toledo> (1085–1833)
>>>
>>> · Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toledo
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Toledo>
>>>
>>> · Toledo (Spanish Congress electoral district)
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_(Spanish_Congress_electoral_district)>
>>>
>>> *United States*[edit
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=7&editintro=Template:Disambig_editintro>
>>> ]
>>>
>>> · Toledo, Illinois
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Illinois>, a village
>>>
>>> · Toledo, Iowa <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Iowa>, a
>>> small town
>>>
>>> · Toledo, Kansas <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Kansas>,
>>> an unincorporated community
>>>
>>> · Toledo, Callaway County, Missouri
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Callaway_County,_Missouri>, an
>>> unincorporated community
>>>
>>> · Toledo, Ozark County, Missouri
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ozark_County,_Missouri>, an
>>> unincorporated community
>>>
>>> · Toledo, Ohio <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ohio>
>>>
>>> · Toledo, Oregon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Oregon>,
>>> a small town
>>>
>>> · Toledo, Washington
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Washington>, a small city
>>>
>>> · Toldeo, Texas
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toldeo,_Texas&action=edit&redlink=1>,
>>> a small town
>>>
>>> *Uruguay*[edit
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=8&editintro=Template:Disambig_editintro>
>>> ]
>>>
>>> · Toledo, Uruguay <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Uruguay>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> *On
>>> Behalf Of *Kris Seeburn
>>> *Sent:* Friday, July 20, 2018 2:39 PM
>>> *To:* Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
>>> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD
>>> Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJ
>>> sKyWX8WZXRUXAo/edit
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRUXAo%2Fedit&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cdb15f0d902484827682608d5ee7885ee%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636677123764221322&sdata=E1boSeyGtZsKbrr0Ac8d1sDn%2FAu5cwURV1QRYRHLsBo%3D&reserved=0>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cdb15f0d902484827682608d5ee7885ee%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636677123764221322&sdata=RRs2FEJ3ixxle4CLxPocJa1VFPRN6MDZpyxESkju9kE%3D&reserved=0>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kris Seeburn
>>> seeburn.k at gmail.com
>>> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fkseeburn%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cdb15f0d902484827682608d5ee7885ee%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636677123764221322&sdata=FP%2BXKIn9d9mv64v4skIZTCRvXnZzbJK2H1781kzepOs%3D&reserved=0>
>>>
>>> "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
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cdb15f0d902484827682608d5ee7885ee%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636677123764221322&sdata=RRs2FEJ3ixxle4CLxPocJa1VFPRN6MDZpyxESkju9kE%3D&reserved=0>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kris Seeburn
>>> seeburn.k at gmail.com
>>> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fkseeburn%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cdb15f0d902484827682608d5ee7885ee%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636677123764221322&sdata=FP%2BXKIn9d9mv64v4skIZTCRvXnZzbJK2H1781kzepOs%3D&reserved=0>
>>>
>>> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
>>>
>>> <image001.gif>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this
>>> message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it.
>>> Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable
>>> privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of
>>> the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be
>>> used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties
>>> under applicable tax laws and regulations.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180724/430c93bc/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list