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

[Carlos Raul Gutierrez]

Thank you Jorge!

Sounds much better to me.

Carlos R Gutierrez

On June 25, 2018 5:15:58 PM EST, 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:
>
>o   Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but
>".europe")
>
>o   ISO 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)
>
>o   Capital 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:
>
>o   Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing
>their right of free expression by using city name based domains!
>
>o   But 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:
>
>o   In 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).
>
>o   So 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!
>
>o   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).
>
>o   Such 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

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180625/5d090aca/attachment-0001.html>