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

Fri Jun 8 10:26:10 UTC 2018

+1 Kris

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:18 PM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think we can put a first level of acceptance and agree on how we move.
> We may never know what other situations may crop up in the future. I
> suggest we come to terms and agree on a first way forward and then we may
> revisit other situations as they crop up. We cannot please everyone at this
> stage, else we will never end the discussions.
>
> We cannot also find the solutions for everything at this stage and i would
> say we need to move ahead with a preliminary agreement and see through this
> situation. Else we will never ever move towards a solution. Nothing will be
> perfect but it will be important to keep in mind many of the suggestions
> etc., to be taken up as and when.
>
> That is my take. I am only saying this because at this stage no matter
> what we do or decide we will never formulate something that fits all
> issues. Let’s agree on a first stage way forward so we do not stall the
> discussions but we note on a report that suggests all other issues raised
> as a problem statement and move ahead to clear the first line. We need to
> move into something than nothing.
>
> My two cents.
>
> Kris
>
>
> On Jun 8, 2018, at 11:26, Nick Wenban-Smith <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> *On
> Behalf Of *Heather Forrest
> *Sent:* 08 June 2018 07:16
> *To:* 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>
> 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" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <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 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
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kris Seeburn
> seeburn.k at gmail.com
>
>    - 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/20180608/05bba60f/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/20180608/05bba60f/KeepItOn_Social_animated-0001.gif>