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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Tue Jun 26 21:24:13 UTC 2018


​Maybe I'll put the question more simply:  What is a city?

Greg​


On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:00 PM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

> Well, cities are there. Cities have names. The public authorities and the
> populations of such cities care about their names, and the former have
> responsibilities, interests and, in some jurisdictions at least, rights on
> those identifiers.
>
> But what is considered as a city is different from country to country.
>
> So deferring to local laws and policies on what is considered in each case
> as a city is respectful of the sensitivities and increases predictability
> and certainty for all.
>
> I feel that some deference to subsidiarity is quite a healthy exercise –
> in the end the fact that an entity is considered a city in a given country
> reflects that such identity as a city is relevant in that country.
>
> e.g. in Switzerland we have specific criteria on what we consider a „city“
> – we would rather not want to get that definition imposed on us…
>
> best
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *Von:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:52
> *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
>
> *Cc:* Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP:
> Work Track 5 Comments
>
>
>
> Perhaps I expressed myself poorly.  I am asking why determining whether
> something is a "city" is useful in this context, when its meaning is so
> variable as to be virtually meaningless as a general term?  It just shows
> that there is no consistent basis for this demand for city "protections",
> if there's any basis at all.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:46 PM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
>
> I guess I don’t understand your comment or I expressed myself very poorly:
> the word „city“ as such is not a geoname (as far as I know)…
>
> With city I refer to what is defined as a city – the “city name” refers to
> the actual names of the entities considered as cities…
>
> Hope this is clearer…
>
> Best
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *Von:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:42
> *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> *Cc:* Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>
>
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP:
> Work Track 5 Comments
>
>
>
> 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/20180626/4c9957a2/attachment-0001.html>


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