[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