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

Tue May 8 05:01:51 UTC 2018

Jeff,

I will disagree with one statement you made:

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.

I suppose it depends on how you define "impacted governments."  If every
geographical term, no matter how obscure, results in an "impacted
government," then I disagree vehemently.

On the other hand, if we are first going to define some small subset of
geographic terms (e.g., names of countries) where there will be an
"impacted government," then I probably agree.  But this is predicated on
the idea that the vast majority of strings with geographic meanings will
not create "impacted governments."  Otherwise, if Bill and Hillary Clinton
want to apply for .Clinton, they will need to "somehow have a consultation"
with the 30 "impacted governments" of the 30 Clintons in the United States
-- and maybe elsewhere. That can't be right.  I'll note that Alexander
Schubert proposed some sort of minimum population size; while I'm not
endorsing that, it shows that the statement quoted above is at the very
least, far too broad, and that the result will not be a consultation every
time a string shows up in the index to to an atlas.

Greg.

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Liz Williams <liz.williams at auda.org.au>
wrote:

> Hello Jeff
>
> You have raised some interesting points.  Another question to add is what
> happens when the intended use changes?
>
> For example, the business which was the original intention looks difficult
> and the operator has to modify the original business plan?
> Or the business is sold?  There have been many examples of strings which
> have been repurposed (tv, la, co spring immediately to mind) and others
> that have changed hands (where the operator changes)?
>
> Are we satisfied that from a policy perspective that, for example, the
> public interest commitments system worked/s?
>
> Is a better/stronger Specification 13 the way to solve “intended use”
> question or something else?
>
> Looking forward to other ideas/questions/discussion.
>
> Liz
> ….
> Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs
> .au Domain Administration Ltd
> M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757
> E: liz.williams at auda.org.au www.auda.org.au
>
> Important Notice
> This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject
> to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee
> only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or
> copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake,
> please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
>
> On 8 May 2018, at 1:05 am, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> *Jeffrey J. Neuman*
> *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
> Mclean, VA 22102, United States
> E: *jeff.neuman at valideus.com <jeff.neuman at valideus.com>* or *jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
> <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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180508/b69099b3/attachment-0001.html>