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

Marita Moll mmoll at ca.inter.net
Mon Jun 25 22:32:55 UTC 2018


Actually, Alexander had proposed a range  -- from 100,000 to 500,000. 
And there is also the alternative of a pro-rated size depending on the 
state. Both of these can exist concurrently. So if it looked like I was 
agreeing with an absolute number, sorry.  That's not really what was 
intended.

As Jorge says, we do still have to define city. I don't know if his 
suggestion would be workable. In Italy, every small town with a 
Cathedral is a city. So we might have to go with a more encompassing 
definition.

Marita


On 6/25/2018 6:15 PM, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
>
> An alternative is to defer to national laws and policies defining what 
> is a “city” for each country. Such an information should be simple to 
> assemble in the age of big data…
>
> Best
>
> Jorge
>
> *Von:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 
> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Carlos 
> Raul Gutierrez
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 25. Juni 2018 16:51
> *An:* Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures 
> PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
>
> I agree with Marita that the absolute number limit proposed by 
> Alexander Schubert does not help! Hope there is an alternative
>
> ---
>
> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>
> El 2018-06-25 08:47, Marita Moll escribió:
>
>     Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this.
>
>     Not totally happy with "To reduce this new burden there should be
>     a "cutoff" implemented: only if the city meets a certain
>     requirement (e.g. in population size) the "non-geo use" would be
>     replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance
>     has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such
>     generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there
>     is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city
>     will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve
>     the city)."
>
>     But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a
>     way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but
>     are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan
>     city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions
>     -- not sure about that.
>
>     If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around
>     1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust.
>
>     Marita
>
>     On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
>
>         Dear Joe,
>
>         thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven't
>         been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read
>         all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also
>         state:
>
>         /*"......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...."*/
>
>
>         Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than
>         discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges
>         (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has
>         been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view:
>
>         ·We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify
>         areas of improvement
>
>         ·In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely:
>
>         oUnesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but
>         ".europe")
>
>         oISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata
>         wasn't granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK
>         from the region BAR in ME -
>         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME)
>
>         oCapital cities
>
>         ·All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the
>         responsible Government authority – independent whether or not
>         the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody
>         has really much challenged these rules.
>
>         ·The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was "city
>         names" – with "city" not really very precisely defined. In the
>         2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name
>         needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only
>         exception was a declaration of "non-geo name use". That could
>         be a brand, a generic term, or some ".xyz"-like fun theme:
>         ".heyyou" - which might be an industrial center in China (I
>         made that up).
>
>         There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs.  those
>         who want to protect the free expression rights of city
>         populations):
>
>         ·There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying "city
>         names" – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap
>         with so called "brands and generic terms!
>
>         ·In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important
>         cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is
>         being able to express themselves through a domain name based
>         on their city name – just like in the future most if not all
>         big metropolises will offer that possibility!
>
>         ·So if somebody would apply for ".telaviv" (officially
>         Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim "non-geo use"
>         (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they
>         would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR
>         they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war
>         against a potential city based non-profit that represents the
>         city's constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a
>         financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based
>         application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good
>         people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how
>         you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them?
>
>         ·Plus: It doesn't really matters what the registry "intents" –
>         the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor
>         is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it
>         is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for
>         that purpose – and there won't be any obligation by ICANN to
>         prevent such use!
>
>         ·Some here claim that "brands" have "rights" – while citizens
>         of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a
>         travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the
>         connotation with the city – and ICANN's mission is to foster
>         PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right
>         of free expression) and NOT helping "brands" to squat on city
>         resources! What is more important: the "right" of a small
>         brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in
>         a city?
>
>         ·The entire thing is a question of "culture" – and like in any
>         OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is
>         steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me
>         included).
>
>         ·As this is not an "election" where a "majority" decides what
>         the future culture shall be (essentially picking a "winner" –
>         and creating a big pool of "losers")  – we will need to find
>         an agreeable compromise!
>
>         ·The compromise needs to:
>
>         oProtect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from
>         losing their right of free expression by using city name based
>         domains!
>
>         oBut to not overprotect that category – because it would put
>         too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants!
>
>         ·I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems
>         there has been broad support for it:
>
>         oIn order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech
>         and free expression rights permanently we do strike the
>         "non-geo use" clause without replacement! (Don't get a cardiac
>         arrest – read on).
>
>         oSo if somebody applies for ".telaviv" and claims it would be
>         a new social network like TWITTER or a ".xyz" clone – they
>         would need to get the city's approval first – to PROTECT the
>         citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very
>         important!
>
>         oTo reduce this new burden there should be a "cutoff"
>         implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement
>         (e.g. in population size) the "non-geo use" would be replaced.
>         In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a
>         name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic
>         term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is
>         no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city
>         will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to
>         serve the city).
>
>         oSuch cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures
>         would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and
>         500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size!
>         Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be
>         defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying!
>
>         ·The outcome would be that brands and generic term based
>         applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while
>         in the same time the free speech rights and rights of
>         expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be
>         preserved in accordance with ICANN's mission! In the very rare
>         cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a "big city" name
>         (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of
>         that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry:
>         but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city's fame: your
>         own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet
>         certain obligations. You are just a "co-brand"; the "real
>         brand" is the city brand; and you are living "off" it. Then go
>         and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only
>         cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra
>         protected (no "non-geo use clause") – what is the number of
>         brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database
>         against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM
>          registration is a "brand"!
>
>         *So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is
>         being floated:*
>
>         ·*Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
>
>         ·*In the category "city": elevate cities that meet a certain
>         requirement into the same status as subnational regions or
>         capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
>
>         ·*And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM
>         as important as the average capital or a subnational region!
>         Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!*
>
>         The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the
>         isle and compromise. It doesn't work in politics in many
>         countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it
>         doesn't work in Religions most of the times.  We at ICANN
>         could proof that WE can do it. So let's simply do it. Both
>         sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am
>         guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am
>         passionate when it comes to rights of people and public
>         benefit!).
>         Now it is time to form the compromise.
>
>
>
>         A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable?
>
>         Anyone in?
>
>         Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for
>         that specific category we can look at geo name categories
>         previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category
>         – and should not be conflated with the city name category!
>
>         Thanks,
>
>         Alexander
>
>
>
>
>         *From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>         [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of
>         *Joe Alagna
>         *Sent:* Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM
>         *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>         <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> Work Track 5
>         <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>         <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>         *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent
>         Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
>
>         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
>         <mailto: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
>         <mailto: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
>         <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/20180625/ad277768/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list