[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June

Fri Jun 8 07:50:19 UTC 2018

Hello everyone

I appreciate Nick and Heather’s points very much.

I think we can do better than “least bad”.  I have always said that consensus based decision-making comes up with the "least intolerable” solutions that all parties can manage to agree on.

However, now is the time to do better than 2007 policy recommendations (which many of us spent years getting to) and 2012 implementation of those policies (which many of us then had to live with and which were not ideal).

If we have to take longer and think harder and do better to come up with policy recommendations that are turned into a new AGB 20XX then so be it.  Hopefully key inputs from people like Heather can help us get to fact-based future-proof principles that are robust enough to withstand multiple challenges in an evaluation process.  The proof of the pudding will be applications which become new TLD labels that users can make a part of an every day Internet life.

Liz
….
Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs
.au Domain Administration Ltd
M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757
E: liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au>

Important Notice
This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

On 8 Jun 2018, at 5:26 pm, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith at nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith at nominet.uk>> wrote:

Well put Heather. I remember the IRT discussions on GPML and it’s a good analogy.

Whilst GPML was ultimately rejected for trade mark owners however some additional protection mechanisms at the second level were approved (TMCH, URS). I know there are other groups looking at how that all panned out in practice, but additional protections were certainly agreed to be a valid concern given the potential massive expansion of gTLDs.

When it comes to city names (especially capitals) and where use is intended as a forum or online representation of a community I continue to believe that there should be something in the rule book as per the 2012 round. I know the CPE mechanisms were in part designed to address this and ensure that in a contention situation the community application would score higher and avoid the need for an auction, but that in practice was very complex to the point that it could be argued it defeated its purpose. And of course it relies on there being an application or at the very least some awareness of the gTLDs process, something which is not a given for some communities or parts of the world.

I still think (based on direct experience with Wales and London) that the non-objection process whilst imperfect might be the least bad solution vs others currently on the table. But I don’t support widening the category of terms subject to non objection – ISO regions, capitals city names (although not in every language) plus city names where the use is intended for that city/ community is sufficient.

Best wishes
Nick

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Heather Forrest
Sent: 08 June 2018 07:16
To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June

Dear WT5 colleagues,
I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions.
In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I’ll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a ‘Globally Protected Marks List’ (often referred to then as ‘GPML’) was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection.
Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN’s then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: ‘The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.’ (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pdf)
Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision.
 Best wishes,
Heather Forrest
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew at icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew at icann.org>>
Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>" <gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>

Dear all,

Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC.

Agenda wiki page:   https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ

As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member.

Mp3:  https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3

Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/<https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b592ccc21320b2067715609560b344fb59191929d07b3045>

The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar

** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **

Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/

Main wiki page:  https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw

Thank you.
Kind regards,

Terri

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180608/fc0caf78/attachment-0001.html>