[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments

[Maureen Hilyard]

Thank you Joe for this very informative explanation. For me the most
important summary which I totally agree with, is suggestion #1:

a.      A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and
curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential
geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not,
don't exist

I think that a lot of valuable contributions have been stifled by "what-if"
arguments that I believe have been barriers for progress for the group. I
note that going into ICANN62, we have been reminded that unless a decision
is made soon by WT5, then the 2012 AGB is the fallback, wasting the major
effort that has been put into this project by a lot of people. I like your
explanations and that they come from someone within the industry who is
able to view impacts of the new gTLDs over the longer term.

My 2c  :)
Maureen

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 6:11 AM, Joe Alagna <jalagna at afilias.info> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
>
> Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been
> an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to
> member so I could make a comment.
>
>
> I would like to pose several questions and considerations.  Please accept
> my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I
> have been unable to join the telephonic discussions.  I have perused the
> ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
>
>
> These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing
> and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position.  The
> work you are doing is important.  Please note that these are my own
> observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work
> for:
>
> 1.      Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names
> as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories.  I’ve always
> understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for
> geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the
> discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business
> names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain
> geographic names, cities and territories.  You can look at any database
> of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find
> hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings.  Strings
> like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the
> locations of service areas for example.  These include names like Swiss
> Air and American Telephone and Telegraph.  I use that second example to
> show how long-standing this tradition is.  This fact seems unacknowledged
> so far in our discussions.  I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years +
> of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how
> many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type
> strings.
>
> The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or
> private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when
> considering the type of entity applying for a string.
>
> 2.      There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding
> geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private
> entities.  My experience, at least in the United States is that many
> government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that
> matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what
> I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
>
> These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu)
> domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public
> company does not have.  Yet they prefer not to use them.
>
> The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across
> the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email
> addresses in the .edu or .us space.  A very typical teacher or
> administrative email address looks like this:
>
> *MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName at LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us
> <MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName at LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us>*
>
> They don’t seem to want to change this.  Wouldn’t it be better and more
> convenient for them to use something like:
>
> *MyKidsTeachersName at LAUnified.gov <MyKidsTeachersName at LAUnified.gov>* (or
> .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name?  So…
>
> 3.      Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the
> ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
>
>
> a.      Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not
> engaged nor involved in this process,
>
> b.      Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
>
> c.      Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven,
> process, not the creation of laws or rights
>
> Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity?
> In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed
> “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a
> hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN,
> therefore,
>
> 4.      Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or
> “rights” at all?  In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that?  It seems that
> we do not, and probably should not have that power.
>
> 5.      There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with
> local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they
> would like to do work is relevant.  *I would agree with that general
> principal* since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to
> rule the world.
>
> 6.      Shouldn’t we *not* assume that every government entity around the
> world cares about what we are doing here.  In fact, I am sure that most
> don’t care – at least as much as we do.  If they did care, they would be
> involved.
>
> We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate
> how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We
> should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will
> affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in
> our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
>
> a.      A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and
> curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential
> geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not,
> don't exist
>
> b.      A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places
> we define
>
> c.      Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should
> recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of
> which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and
> maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an
> assumption of renewal for applicants.  This would allow for worthwhile
> private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by
> any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then
> care to.
>
> d.      There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed
> on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government).  If we
> do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we
> limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
>
> Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and
> participation.  I believe this discussion is an important one and I know
> the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time.  I only wish I was
> able to contribute near as much time as all of you have.  Thank you!
>
> Joe Alagna
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180623/94c51847/attachment.html>