[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] "Intended Use" Discussion
Greg Shatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Wed May 9 05:03:08 UTC 2018
Jeff and all,
I had already started such a table a couple of weeks ago, which I have now
revised to harmonize with your suggested categories. I was also able to
pull in a lot of information from ICANNWiki, so we actually have a really
good start. It still could use some clean-up (ok, a lot of clean-up), but
I think it is well over the first hurdle for projects like this.
Here is the link:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jPa4jdBgo8P2aC6G4pzLoFTfyocIeon8qVD7Q9mlM5A/edit?usp=sharing
Anyone can edit, but please use "suggest" mode for any edits that are not
simply facts (no matter your position....)
Greg
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
wrote:
> Jorge,
>
>
>
> Appreciate the feedback. Just a couple of questions:
>
>
>
> 1. You state:
>
>
>
> - *“As to the dozen names that did not fall under the geonames
> provisions*, there I agree that we had and still have around
> problematic cases. In fact, as said, I believe that those problems were due
> to the lack of the non-objection requirement, i.e. applicants apparently
> did not have enough incentives to seek an agreement/non-objection from the
> affected public authorities, with the ensuing problems we all know…”
>
>
>
> However, others have stated that they believe the problems stem from (1)
> lack of knowledge that the name in question would be considered by anyone
> to be geographic, (2) the belief that since they were not planning on using
> the name in a geographic sense they did not need to seek any form of
> non-objection, nor did they know from whom to get such a letter, and (3)
> lack of an incentive for the relevant governmental authority to even come
> to the table to discuss the application or to agree to write such a letter.
>
>
>
> 1. To push back a little on “Intended Use.” I agree with you that up
> until now, TLDs have been considered a “Unique” resource and therefore the
> fact that only one party gets complete rights to the TLD has been a
> stumbling block to the discussions of Intended Use.
>
>
>
> - What if that wasn’t the case? What if there were ways to allow uses
> of the TLD by the applicant, but in some way also allowing the applicable
> government to also get some use?
> - I do know of at least one situation (which I am not sure is
> publicly known….so cannot go into detail) where two parties had an interest
> in a particular TLD and arrangements were made to ensure both parties were
> entitled in some ways to use the space.
>
>
>
> 1. On the data collection question, specifically, what data are you
> seeking? I can start with the following (some of which we have):
>
>
>
> *Question 1*
>
> 1. How many applications were there for geographic terms (as such
> terms were defined in the Guidebook)?
> 2. Of those in question a, how many of those required either a
> letter of consent or letter of non-objection.
> 3. Of the ones in b that required a letter, how many obtained that
> letter?
> 4. Of those in c, how many of those letters met the requirements
> set forth in the Guidebook?
> 5. Of those in d, how many of them entered into a contract?
> 6. Of those in e, how many of them were delegated.
>
>
>
> *Question 2*
>
> 1. How many applications were there that were for geographic terms
> that were not indicated as such in the Guidebook?
> 2. Of those applications in a, how many of those applications received
> one or more early warnings? If they received n early warning, who issued
> them and what were the reasons given?
> 3. Of the applications in a which of those applications received
> formal GAC Advice?
> 4. Of the applications in a, which applications, if any, received
> non-consensus GAC advice, and what were the reasons given?
> 5. Of the applications mentioned in b, c, and d above, were any of
> those applications withdrawn? If so, were reasons stated for their
> withdrawal?
> 6. Of the applications mentioned in b, c, and d above, were any of
> those applications terminated by ICANN (“will not proceed”). Of those,
> which applications are still on hold pending the final outcome of an
> accountability mechanism?
> 7. Of the applications in b, c, and d, have any applications been
> subsequently accepted and approved to move forward? If so, which ones?
> 8. Of the applications in b that received early warnings, have any of
> the applicants agreed to additional commitments, or formal public interest
> commitments as a result of the early warnings?
> 9. Of the applications in b that received early warnings, or c that
> received Consensus GAC Advice or non-consensus advice, which applicants
> were able to have discussions with the applicable governments prior to the
> issuance of Early Warnings, GAC Advice, or non-consensus GAC advice?
> 10. Of the applications in b that received early warnings, or c that
> received Consensus GAC Advice or non-consensus advice, which applicants
> were able to have discussions with the applicable governments after the
> issuance of Early Warnings, GAC Advice, or non-consensus GAC advice, but
> prior to ultimate resolution?
>
>
>
> I can see constructing a table with the following columns for strings
> considered to be “geographic”:
>
>
>
> 1. String
> 2. Current Status (Delegated, Withdrawn, Terminated by ICANN, Pending
> Accountability Mechanism)
> 3. Applicant / Registry Operator
> 4. Was the string classified as geographic in the AGB? (Yes or No)
> 5. If yes, under which section?
> 6. Did the string require a letter of non-objection / consent in the
> AGB?
> 7. If a letter was required, was such a letter obtained? (Yes or no)
> 8. If the string was not explicitly classified as geographic in the
> AGB, was their an “intended use” of the string enumerated in the
> Application?
> 9. For those in #8 above, indicate whether the strings “intended use”
> was as an open TLD (also includes Open restricted), Brand TLD, community
> TLD, or geographic TLD.
> 10. Did the string pass the geographic evaluation panel (Yes, no, or
> N/A)
> 11. Did the string receive one or more Early Warnings? (yes or no) –
> If so, from who?
> 12. Did the string receive formal GAC Advice?
> 13. Notes
> 1. This section would include records of any discussions that may
> have taken place and are publicly known.
>
>
>
> This would be just a start 😊
>
>
>
> *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
>
>
>
> *From:* Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 8, 2018 9:56 AM
>
> *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; alexander at schubert.berlin;
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] "Intended Use" Discussion
>
>
>
> Dear Jeff
>
>
>
> *As to the data*: I feel that we need more *analysis here on the specific
> applications that fell under the geonames provisions* and where any
> potential issues emerged. Otherwise we are just talking about opinions,
> guesses and hypothesis. The data is out there and staff could help gather
> that information, including the views of applicants and relevant public
> authorities. That data could help us to improve the letter of non-objection
> system.
>
>
>
> *As to the dozen names that did not fall under the geonames provisions*,
> there I agree that we had and still have around problematic cases. In fact,
> as said, I believe that those problems were due to the lack of the
> non-objection requirement, i.e. applicants apparently did not have enough
> incentives to seek an agreement/non-objection from the affected public
> authorities, with the ensuing problems we all know…
>
>
>
> *As to the incentives*: as far as I know most public authorities do not
> run the TLDs for themselves. But they have a general interest in their name
> and want to have a say in the process (for reasons already explained in
> detail). On the other hand we have the applicant with a specific, direct
> interest and a business model. You have two different kinds of interests
> converging on one unique resource. The non-objection letter gets the
> applicant onto a table with the public authorities. And the non-objection
> may be sought after by anyone: brands, communities, businesses, academia,
> ngos (if they have the money!)… The non-objection just means that the
> public authority is OK with their plans after their conversation. It does
> not give any further priority, but means that the public interests
> represented by that public authority have been satisfactorily considered –
> which may take many different forms depending on the city (laisser faire;
> participate in the governance; follow some conditions, etc.).
>
>
>
> *As to intended use*: I refer back to my summary of the issue, shared by
> many colleagues from all SO/ACs here, where it is explained why such a
> distinction is not helpful when we are talking about a unique resource.
>
>
>
> Hope this helps
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
> <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>]
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 8. Mai 2018 15:40
> *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>;
> alexander at schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Betreff:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] "Intended Use" Discussion
>
>
>
> Jorge,
>
>
>
> By “priority”, I also mean without a “default rule” where one party gets a
> veto right (by not writing a letter of non-objection or refusing to grant
> consent).
>
>
>
> I am not taking a side here, just trying to get an out of box solution.
>
>
>
> Jorge – For the 60+ that you mention, there were at least a dozen if not
> more examples of terms that were not included in the AGB, where problems
> with predictability were identified. Some of those are still in
> accountability mechanisms. Plus, most of the 60+ that you refer to were
> applications for geo-related terms where the TLDs intended use was for that
> geographic area (eg. Nyc, berlin, boston, London, etc.)
>
>
>
> I have not seen any dispute with the notion that if someone wants to use a
> geoterm in conjunction with the geographic area they should get some sort
> of letter of consent or non-objection. If I am wrong, please weigh in.
>
>
>
> It is with respect to those terms that match a geoterm but are not
> intended to be used in conjunction with the geographic area.
>
>
>
> *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
>
>
>
> *From:* Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 8, 2018 9:30 AM
> *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; alexander at schubert.berlin;
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] "Intended Use" Discussion
>
>
>
> Dear Jeff
>
> As said before, non-objection does not equal to priority. It is a
> requirement for an application to go forward. The incentives for compromise
> seem to have been there when 60+ applications went through successfully. If
> there is a problem with the incentive structure we should base that on
> factual analysis of what happened in the last round, listening to both
> applicants and relevant public authorities involved.
>
> Best regards
>
> 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 *Jeff Neuman
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 8. Mai 2018 15:25
> *An:* alexander at schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] "Intended Use" Discussion
>
>
>
> Thanks for this Alexander and for a proposal.
>
>
>
> So it seems like we have 2 different questions:
>
>
>
> 1. Which cities / regions are included in whatever process we develop.
> 2. For the cities/regions that are include in the process, what will
> that process be?
>
>
>
> I am trying to focus on *number 2* without involving the notion of
> “priority”? If we do not have a default that states that an applicant
> cannot have that term unless they get affirmative consent / non-objection
> nor do we have a default that the name is automatically given to the
> applicant without conditions, what are the other options?
>
>
>
> If we put aside question 1 for the moment…I am trying to elicit responses
> to number 2 without using terms like priority. When one side has
> *priority* there is little incentive for any compromise.
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Alexander Schubert
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 8, 2018 8:31 AM
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] "Intended Use" Discussion
>
>
>
> Dear group,
>
> Greg’s point is very valid – and in fact has been raised by many others as
> well:
>
> There has to be a sufficient amount of people (or other metric that
> establishes “relevance”) being affiliated with a place to grant them the
> privilege of being looped into the application process (via letter of
> non-objection).
> We are working off the 2012 AGB. Per 2.2.1.4.2 only strings identical to
> these entities require “Government Support” (letter of non-objection):
>
> - Capital City (in any language) – irrelevant to its size!
> - Sub-national place names as listed in the ISO 3166-2 standard
> (caused problems with .bar, .tata and others in 2012) – again: irrelevant
> to its size! The U.S. has listed only a few (namely their States), but
> others have listed insane amounts of tiny places. Population size-wise a
> very inconsistent list in my mind.
> - UNESCO regions. URL: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/
> then click “Geographic regions”. These names shouldn’t pose any problem –
> no overlapping with other places or brands here.
> - CITIES! Last not least: City names. While the first three are fairly
> overseeable and lists exist – this last category is slightly “murky” – and
> that is PRECISELY why we are primarily talking about that category: it is
> the ONLY one of the 2012 AGB that provides a base for discussion really.
>
>
>
> In the U.S. alone there are over 3,000 “cities” with more than 10,000
> people – and 19,500 places in total. India has over 4,000 cities with more
> than 10k people as well. I can’t find reliable statistics – but there must
> be in excess of 50,000 cities globally with more than 10,000 people. Now
> imagine you lower that bar to 5,000!
>
>
>
> We will need a proposal to “limit” the number of cities (and in my mind
> the “Sub-national place names as listed in the ISO 3166-2 standard” as
> well) in respect to the requirement for a letter of non-objection. Only if
> a city has enough inhabitants (or is otherwise very important, e.g. because
> it is the capital) enough affiliated people are deprived of their chance to
> express themselves via their own self-managed gTLD. And quite frankly: Even
> if I am a very daring person when it comes to gTLD applications (.berlin
> WAS “daring” in 2005, so was .gay in 2009) – I simply completely fail to
> imagine that cities smaller than 10,000 people would ever apply for their
> own gTLD. There might be singular cases (Aspen!) – but policy will ALWAYS
> have to balance between protections and burdens. And obviously anybody can
> still apply for any super tiny city if they wish: but most likely that
> application will be funded and operated by city constituents anyway – and
> NOT by portfolio applicants: you can’t “make profit” of a city gTLD when
> there are only less than 10k people. So we are good with “warehousing” and
> fight off profiteers.
>
>
>
> Hence my suggestion (again – please don’t beat me):
>
> - We define a cut-off size “X”. My gut feeling says somewhere between
> 10,000 and 50,000 people. Maybe others here could chime in!
> - Any gTLD applicant (regardless of intended use!) that applies for an
> identical string will have to acquire a letter of non-objection from EACH
> city with more than “X” inhabitants. That limits the burden for city
> applicants and generic string / brand applicants as well!
> - I suggest that the cut-off rule applies for “Sub-national place
> names as listed in the ISO 3166-2 standard”, too.
>
>
>
> If we want to avoid a “beauty contest” or “repositories” then I see no
> other metric than population size. And population size matters – as an
> underpopulated place simply can’t sustain their own gTLD (unless they are
> Aspen).
>
>
>
> I think such compromise would ease the “pain” of the TM lobby – while it
> would sufficiently protect the interest of the people of cities.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Alexander.berlin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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 *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 08, 2018 8:02 AM
> *To:* Liz Williams <liz.williams at auda.org.au>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] "Intended Use" Discussion
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180509/76a0cf5f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list