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

Wed May 9 13:29:30 UTC 2018

Giacomo,

This is my personal input as part of WT5.

I am not sure that is a fair representation in the full context of the AGB rules applied in 2012 that the applicant followed.

Nevertheless, I think it is worth noting that brand applicants see the operation of their registry as furthering security and stability for internet users. Where governments and law enforcement agencies find it incredibly difficult to combat fraud and criminality across the global Internet, something which will be further hindered from 25 May (GDPR), brands have had to consider new ways to combat counterfeiting, fraud and other criminal activities to safeguard their customers. These criminal activities are often a component of a much larger criminal network that have a significant impact around the world.

In this context, there is a public interest provided to (potentially) millions of internet users on an international/global basis which should not be ignored.

Kind regards,

Martin

Sent from my iPhone

On 9 May 2018, at 13:34, Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone at ebu.ch<mailto:mazzone at ebu.ch>> wrote:

Katrin
I totally agree. Claiming that Patagonia was not intended to be geographic it's a joke, because the brand derives directly from the geo-name.
‎And the rules -as you pointed- were very clear already in 2012. We have just to improve it and make more cogent.
Giacomo

De: Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH
Envoyé: mercredi, 9 mai 2018 13:27
À: Jeff Neuman
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
Objet: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] "Intended Use" Discussion

Dear Jeff,

let me propose a way forward on your three identified potential causes for the issues:

(1) lack of knowledge that the name in question would be considered by anyone to be geographic
> a search on wikipedia.org<http://wikipedia.org> would determine that e.g. .lucerne has several geographic meanings. The knowledge, whether an application would be considered by someone to be geographic, can be gained this way pretty easily.

(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

I believe that the AGB provided some answers to the questions others raised. However, more clarity might be helpful, how to identify the proper contact.

> The AGB 2012, 2.2.1.4 states: “Applicants should review these requirements even if they do not believe their intended gTLD string is a geographic name. All applied-for gTLD strings will be reviewed according to the requirements in this section, regardless of whether the application indicates it is for a geographic name.”

> The AGB 2012, 2.2.4.2.1 states: “In the event of any doubt, it is in the applicant’s interest to consult with relevant governments and public authorities and enlist their support or non-objection prior to submission of the application, in order to preclude possible objections and pre-address any ambiguities concerning the string and applicable requirements.”

>The AGB 2012 states: “Note: the level of government and which administrative agency is responsible for the filing of letters of support or non-objection is a matter for each national administration to determine. Applicants should consult within the relevant jurisdiction to determine the appropriate level of support.”

(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

Can the person who raised this point elaborate what exactly has been the issue in 2012?

In the last round, ICANN issues “Applicant Advisories” for certain topics, like the COI. Would a “GEO-Advisory” be helpful in order to determine if the applied-for TLD equals a geo term and if so, which next steps are expected / recommended from applicants?

Kind regards,
Katrin

DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow
Akazienstrasse 28
10823 Berlin
Deutschland - Germany
Tel: +49 30 49802722
Fax: +49 30 49802727
Mobile: +49 173 2019240
ohlmer at dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer at dotzon.consulting>
www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting>

DOTZON GmbH
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598
Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin

Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jeff Neuman
Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. Mai 2018 19:31
An: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>; alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] "Intended Use" Discussion

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.

________________________________

**************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway
**************************************************

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto: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/20180509/1b088216/attachment-0001.html>