[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] "Intended Use" Discussion

Carlos Raul Gutierrez carlosraul at gutierrez.se
Mon May 7 15:21:05 UTC 2018

Hello Jeff, 

this is a great way to start thinking outside of the Box! 

I have already asked a few questions about "intended use". The first one
and most important is if there is overlap or not, with the late
introduction of PICs (public interest commitments) in the last round. My
specific question is if any other WT in this PDP is dealing with PICs,
and if yeas, what is the difference between PICs and "intended use",
other than have a policy based use of "intense use", which in my view
would be a great improvement to the fact that the last round had no
explicit bottom up policy for PICs. 

For the time being I just want to stop here with this initial "AGB 2012
boundary" question, and wait for other ideas to start flowing.   

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez

El 2018-05-07 09:05, Jeff Neuman escribió:

> All, 
> Just wanted to get a new thread going just on the concept of "intended use" of a TLD since there has been some good discussion on this narrow topic and thought it may be a good jumping off place to put some ideas out there for discussion.  
> Some have stated that the "intended use" of a gTLD should be considered when looking at whether governments (national/local, etc.) should have to issue a letter of non-objection / consent as a condition of the gTLD application being accepted.  For example, if a TLD applicant does not intended to use the TLD for purposes associated with the geographic connotation of the string, then they argue that the geographic government should not have the final word on whether the TLD is granted. 
> Others have stated that "intended use" of the TLD is irrelevant or not helpful given the fact that only one organization is granted the right to operate and administer the TLD.  And that being the case, consideration should be given to the political, legal, historical, etc. connotations for the communities affected.  Some countries have laws protecting the use of those names regardless of use, according to some commenters. 
> It seems like no one is arguing against the notion of trying to somehow have a consultation between the applicant(s) and the impacted governments to the extent possible.  But having a presumption one way or the other (either that a letter of non-objection/consent be required or a presumption in favor of delegation) is not something there is agreement on. 
> Questions 
> * Is it possible, however, to come up with a solution that is outside of the box?  
> * Can we have consultations where the ultimate outcome is not pre-ordained, but still provide incentives for all of the parties to "come to the table" to express concerns, but also provide ways in which those concerns can be mitigated?  
> * Are there ways to allow the delegation of the TLD, but also address the concerns of the impacted governments?  
> * Could this include agreements to allow the use of second level strings (or the reservation of second level strings) where there is an inherent association with the government / local community?
> * For brand TLDs, there is a requirement currently that all registrations be registered to the brands (or their affiliates / licensees) in order to maintain their Specification 13 protections?  Can there be an exception granted for ones that coincide with a geographic string where certain second level strings that are inherently geographic can be registered by others?
> * Are there any other parameters that can be established to help guide consultations to prevent the perception as expressed by some that governments will try to extract payments in exchange for the right to be the registry of the TLD?
> I am not expressing a view one way or the other on this issue, but merely recognizing that arguments are being made on both sides on the utility of "intended use."  And I would be curious to see if we could flush this out at all? 
> Thanks. 
> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 
> Mclean, VA 22102, United States 
> E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com 
> T: +1.703.635.7514 
> M: +1.202.549.5079 
> @Jintlaw 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180507/f47b9f23/attachment-0001.html>

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