[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 13 June 2018

Thu Jun 14 06:56:02 UTC 2018

Hi Katrin and Liz

To me this is a logical process by which to approach Phase A with useful
mechanisms to provide checkpoints along the way, that as you say enhance
transparency and predictability.
Its a starting point and makes sense for moving forward.

Maureen

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 8:37 PM, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <
ohlmer at dotzon.com> wrote:

> Dear Liz,
>
>
>
> in my opinion it is our task as working group to enhance your described
> situation about Phase A as this caused apparently issues in the last round:
>
>
>
> “In Phase A, my sense is that it is an applicant’s job to be really
> thorough in its risk management and engagement strategy which *may *include
> speaking to public authority representatives.”
>
>
>
> A desireable outcome of our work would be to increase the predictability
> and transparency of the application process – both for applicants and the
> ICANN community. So why should we keep what it is in the AGB 2012 and not
> consider means which help to reduce issues and enhance the process?
> Proposals by different WT members which have been made in this context
> included
>
>
>
> + geo database to check whether the intended applied-for name equates a
> geoName
>
> + geo Advisory panel
>
> + include check if the intended applied-for name equates a geoName
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Katrin
>
>
>
>
>
> DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow
> Akazienstrasse 28
> 10823 Berlin
> Deutschland - Germany
> Tel: +49 30 49802722
> Fax: +49 30 49802727
> Mobile: +49 173 2019240
> ohlmer at dotzon.consulting
> www.dotzon.consulting
>
> DOTZON GmbH
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598
> Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin
>
>
>
> *Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] *Im
> Auftrag von *Liz Williams
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 14. Juni 2018 01:18
> *An:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 13 June 2018
>
>
>
> Hello everyone
>
>
>
> I have a slightly different take on who has responsibility for monitoring
> applications for new TLDs.  Governments and public authorities monitor
> things all the time…that is their job in everything from fishing quota
> compliance to handing out car registrations.  If we argue that governments
> have national public policy responsibilities (which I believe that they do)
> then it is also a “responsibility” to take notice of things like a new TLD
> process which happens very infrequently.  We should be confident that with
> the ever-growing GAC membership, we have a set of stakeholders who are
> paying attention to the expansion of the domain name system as a platform
> for economic growth (amongst many other things) for their citizens.
>
>
>
> And if we were to extend slightly the conversation we had yesterday, we
> can easily identify where “focus” could come in a new TLD process.  I spoke
> about Phase A (application), Phase B (evaluation) and Phase C
> (compliance).  If governments are also applicants then they are involved in
> all three phases (and we already have examples of this precise case).  If a
> national government is interested in Phase B as an objector which is
> entirely possible, then we should have obvious mechanisms for any objector
> to express their objection and have it handled fairly and appropriately.
> In Phase A, my sense is that it is an applicant’s job to be really thorough
> in its risk management and engagement strategy which *may *include
> speaking to public authority representatives.
>
>
>
> This situation applies for all kinds of applications…not just for labels
> which could be perceived as representing some geographic element.
>
>
>
> 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 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 14 Jun 2018, at 1:46 am, lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <
> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear  Julie Hedlund and WT5 colleagues:
>
> Thankyou for these notes.
>
> 1.  Regarding protection of Geo-Names, please refer to point 2.2 of the
> paper dated 7 June, which I read into the record of the meeting.
>
> 2.  > Why is monitoring not possible for public entities, yet expected for
> everyone else?
>
> 2.1 It is not expected for 'everyone else'. I believe that it is mainly
> the trademark industry who finance professional monitoring. Their reaction
> against GDPR suggests that in the past their monitoring has been conducted
> without respect for privacy laws, notably through WhoIs.
>
> 2.2 There is no comparable, financed, legal industry that could monitor
> the new GTLD programme on behalf of all interested stakeholders, world
> wide. (Except, perhaps the ICANN staff). Which is why under point 2.4 of
> the 7 June paper, we have the case for preventive ('a priori') rights,
> rather than curative ('ex-post') rights.
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> CW
>
> El 13 de junio de 2018 a las 8:09 Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> escribió:
>
> Dear Work Track 5 members,
>
>
>
> Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (13
> June).  *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 slides posted on the wiki above, as well as the Working
> Document.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Notes/Action Items:*
>
>
>
> *Action Items:*
>
> -- WT5 members should review and comment on the collaborative working
> document (google document, and attached).
>
> -- Staff will ask on the list who might be traveling during next week’s
> meeting (1400 UTC, 20 June).
>
>
>
> *Notes:*
>
>
>
> 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Review: No SOI updates
>
>
>
> 2. Capital City Names
>
>
>
> -- Coming back to this so we can see where we stand.
>
> -- In 2012 they were restricted because they required a letter of support
> or non-objection.
>
> -- Some downsides to how that worked because sometimes it was hard to find
> the authority.
>
> -- Careful to not talk about "cities" because the notion of cities brings
> in how big, how small, what are we going to do with it, etc.
>
> -- Viewing capital cities as unique and exceptional could see that as a
> category that should remain as it was.
>
> -- The WT found some convergence on  the idea of not abandoning the
> current treatment of Capital Cities”.
>
>
>
> 3. Non-Capital Cities
>
>
>
> -- Diverging opinions: Some would say no controls and some would say
> additional controls over what was in 2012.
>
> -- Some have suggested a quantitative measure around the size of
> population.
>
> -- Broader than just capital city name, so possibility to match a generic
> or branded term.
>
> -- Looking for ideas of how to navigate the different opinions and how to
> improve the next application round.
>
> -- If we want to reach a solution for everyone for city names we should
> try to look into a requirement that would help meet all the different
> interests at stake.
>
> -- Monitoring is not workable for all authorities.
>
> -- Need guidance of what is or what is not a city.
>
> -- Need guidance on how to treat intended use, etc.
>
> -- Try to define the requirements and see if there is a package that would
> cover everything.
>
> -- Let's see if we can make a distinction between pre-emptive conditions
> going into a process which discounts potential applications/applicants and
> then conditions in an evaluation process.  I don't think any one is arguing
> for open slather.  I think we're looking for clarity in an open process and
> then sensible measures to  evaluate applications.
>
> -- On cities I feel we could work on parameters or requirements that would
> serve to meet all the different interests at stake, e.g. having
> clarity/predictability on what is a city, on the need of prior/early
> contact between all interested parties, possible means of resolving
> "conflicts", etc.
>
> -- How should we take into account that many cities have been out there
> for much longer than brands and quite some brand names derived from  a city
> name (rather than the opposite)?
>
> --W hy is monitoring not possible for public entities, yet expected for
> everyone else?
>
> -- Look at the issues where you have an applicant that is related to the
> city as a city, and another that wants to use it for purposes not related
> to the city as a city.  Contrast that to an applicant who wants to use it
> for unrelated geographic reasons, and then one not related to the city
> authority.
>
> -- Public interest commitment -- no applying to use it for a geographic
> use, so wouldn't need the letter of non-objection, but then used it for a
> geographic purpose, that would be against the intent.
>
> -- Divide the analysis into three parts 1) control and compliance; 2)
> objection and contention process -- objection to an applicant and
> contention sets; 3) control in providing potential applicants about the
> types of names and the warnings, that would go into an evaluation process.
>
> -- It may mean that we need to look at contractual restrictions to address
> concerns.
>
> -- There are different areas of control that can be applied.
>
> -- Part of a solution could be to restore the different interests in a way
> that is agreeable to everyone, but first acknowledge that there are
> different interest at stake.
>
> -- Then define the parameters for the requirements for each interest group.
>
> -- The purpose of the process flow was to look at the different areas of
> processing and note that there are different ways to solve issues.
>
> -- Different ways to protect are not mutually exclusive.
>
> -- Documents current protections, but doesn't document those that could
> match a geographic term but is applied for in a geographic way -- even
> where that intent wasn't stated.
>
> -- Think about how to deal with time frame A, B, and C.  Identity who are
> the actors impacted in each of those time frames.  Each of these are very
> different.  Here are the three parts again...A) application B) evaluation
> C) compliance...we could do a little flow chart on this and we will rapidly
> see where we have agreement...
>
> -- Look at something different from the process flow in 2012 -- come up
> with something for the next call where the pressure points are for
> particular stakeholders at particular points in time.
>
> -- In the attribution to one party of a unique resource the key is at the
> start of the process (requirements) - later phases (objections/control) are
> just curative measures, which only will be helpful if the requirements have
> made sure that all interested parties have had a fair say in the
> requirements phase.
>
> -- Look at the different parts of the process in the process flow and
> build agreement in the Work Track -- such as basis of protection and how it
> applies to different terms, which require support or non-objections,
> challenge mechanisms, etc.
>
>
>
> 4. ICANN62 Planning:
>
>
>
> -- Check the schedule online.  There is remote participation.
>
> -- Planning the activities for each session.
>
>
>
> 5. AOB: Staff will send an email to the list to see who might be traveling
> next week.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180613/3bf072f4/attachment-0001.html>