[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Greg Shatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Tue Jun 26 20:42:08 UTC 2018
What is the value in the word "city"? Why does it matter whether a locale
is called a "city" or some other thing -- especially if the definitions
vary so broadly that using the term as a single classification is
meaningless? This shows that deciding that "cities" have "rights" is
certainly not based on any standard. This could become an exercise in
developing meaninglessness out of meanings. That is no way to build a
specification.
Greg
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:52 PM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
> Dear Marita
>
>
>
> Thanks very much for your feedback. I feel that subsidiarity means that
> you accept and are respectful of different solutions according to national
> laws and policies – setting an artificial one size fits all definition of
> “city” in ICANN is rather risky, difficult, and not respectful of different
> approaches at the local level. Perhaps this is a very Swiss thought, but
> one that works when different cultures, traditions and policies are at
> stake…
>
>
>
> Btw: I was not intending to make a distinction between city and city name,
> beyond the intrinsic difference that in national policies and laws you will
> normally find a definition of “city” in the abstract (e.g. in Switzerland
> this is linked to size and other statistical elements) and “city name” is
> the geoname as such, i.e. the question whether a string xyz matches a name
> of an entity defined as a “city” according to the relevant national law or
> policy.
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] *Im
> Auftrag von *Marita Moll
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 13:35
> *An:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP:
> Work Track 5 Comments
>
>
>
> Hi Jorge. I just have a thought on #4.
>
> It would be nice if deferring to local laws was agreed upon, but would
> that be considered "fair" if one locality defined city as something that
> could be rather small but with a unique feature and another locality
> defined city as something that had to be very large, i.e. certain number of
> people or certain area? I tossed some of the wikipedia site you sent
> around the other day in Italian re: definition of cities (my Italian is
> also non-existant) and here is part of what it says.
>
> "Of the title of city, in Italy, you can boast those municipalities that
> have been awarded with the decree of the King (until 1946) or the
> provisional head of the state (until 1948) or the president of the
> Republic, by virtue of their historical importance , artistic, civic or
> demographic. Many other cities are given the title by virtue of legislative
> acts of pre-unification states, or they do so for ancient and uninterrupted
> custom ....." (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titolo_di_citt%C3%A0_in_
> Italia)
>
> I don't think that sort of think applies anywhere in North America. In
> Canada, it is the provinces that define cities, not the federal state, and
> I am sure artistic elements aren't part of it.
>
> #4 in the list below, which I am addressing, refers to defining a "city
> name". Is that considered to be an operation different from defining a
> "city." Can anyone elaborate?
>
> Marita
>
> On 6/26/2018 12:45 PM, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
>
> Dear Greg and all
>
>
>
> Maybe we may slowly creating some common ground…
>
>
>
> Yesterday in the cross-community discussion there were ideas (some I
> proposed myself) such as
>
> (1) setting a deadline for reacting to a letter of non-objection request;
>
> (2) establishing that application may go forward if there is no reaction
> by the relevant pubic authority within that set deadline;
>
> (3) helping the applicant in determining whether the intended string is a
> city name or not; this could be done by an advisory body bound to
> confidentiality;
>
> (4) creating greater predictability by deferring to local laws and
> policies defining what a “city name” is in each jurisdiction… something
> that in the age of big data should be rather simple…
>
> (5) helping the applicant in identifying the relevant public authorities,
> and in establishing contact with them;
>
> (6) establishing mediation or other dispute-resolution procedures when the
> applicant disagrees with the position taken by the relevant authority…
>
> Etc.
>
>
>
> These are all means to address some of the issues alleged on the
> functioning of the “non-objection”-letter framework, and to raise
> predictability and certainty for all parties, without breaking this model
> that in general (with some limited exceptions) worked well according to the
> reported data and facts.
>
>
>
> Hope this may be helpful
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Greg Shatan
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 11:32
> *An:* alexander at schubert.berlin
> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP:
> Work Track 5 Comments
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Alexander Schubert <
> alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:
>
>
>
> Maybe somebody “neutral” could summarize the suggested measures for the *treatment
> of (non-capital) cities*? Right now an applicant (for a non-capital city)
> requires Government support only if there is geo-use intent!
>
> · Do we keep it that way,
>
> · do we protect important (e.g. sizeable) cities a bit more,
>
> · or do we skip the protections completely?
>
>
>
> Seems these are the 3 choices. In MY view!
>
>
>
> I would say there are more choices, or at least more variations, based
> on the type of mechanism used. There are mechanisms that come before the
> application is filed (e.g., the letter of consent/non-objection),
> mechanisms that come after the application is filed but during the
> application process (e.g., objections, and also letters of c/n-o if it's
> determined you must have one), and mechanisms that come after the TLD is
> delegated (Compliance issues, Dispute Resolution Procedures).
>
>
>
> In some of these mechanisms, the "protectable right" is presumed (letter
> of consent/non-objection) and in others the "protectable right" must be
> proven (basically, all of the other mechanisms). How these variables could
> apply to protection of a category of geographic terms is critical.
> "Protection" could be acceptable with one set of variables and unacceptable
> with another set of variables. For example, the right to make an objection
> may be an acceptable protection where a letter of c/n-j is not.
>
>
>
> If we frame this only as a choice between letters of consent/non-objection
> or no "protection" at all, the likelihood of reaching consensus drops
> drastically. We need to add methods of protection to the discussion of
> whether not protections should be granted in order to have the best chance
> of reaching consensus.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Heather Forrest
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:42 AM
> *To:* Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP:
> Work Track 5 Comments
>
>
>
> Dear WT5 colleagues,
>
>
>
> Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place
> right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group
> to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that
> the WT5 current position is: "
>
> *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!"*
>
>
>
> This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an
> agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community
> participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Heather Forrest
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> 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
> <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 Work Track 5
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> <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
> <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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180626/6fae2809/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list