[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name

Wed May 16 21:39:33 UTC 2018

Thanks for your input Susan.  I agree with your concerns.

Let’s all please remember that a geographic term is just that but it can also be many many other things.  In the ICANN context, that is the nature of contention for a string.  We should not be prescriptive, exclusionary or attempt to create unnecessary limitations.

I wanted to engage further on both Alexander and Christopher’s points about limiting the numbers of applications for certain types of applicants for TLDs.  That is most certainly not going to fly.  ICANN mission is explicit on its commitment to encouraging competition in the marketplace and on extending opportunities for end users to choose.  Apart from that, competition authorities in national jurisdictions would have plenty to say about an arbitrary limit imposed on applicants who can validly demonstrate they meet the terms and conditions for any application process.

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<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au<http://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 17 May 2018, at 7:28 am, Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>> wrote:

Alexander, I’d love you to explain how you think this would work in practice – see my rock example which has crossed with yours and has nothing to do with trademarks

Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd
28-30 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom

E: susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>
D: +44 20 7421 8255
T: +44 20 7421 8299
M: +44 7971 661175

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert
Sent: 16 May 2018 22:25
To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name

The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name!

I would like to second Christopher: While not having created too much havoc in the 2012 round that provision WOULD BE heavily abused in the next round.

Other than the trade mark lobby (which is WELL paid to lobby the TM interests): Who ELSE objects Christopher’s suggestion to abandon “the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name”? Somebody OUTSIDE the TM lobby?

Or the other way around: Who else seconds Christopher’s suggestion to abandon “the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name”? A geo name is a geo name – once delegated to somebody the constituents and citizens of that geo-location are deprived to utilize the string to identify themselves in the DNS forever. Inacceptable.

Thanks,

Alexander

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:46 PM
To: lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>

Christopher wrote:

3.  The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?)

There has been significant— repeated — objection to that proposition, so no, you may not take it that it is agreed in WT5.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that.

Greg

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:39 PM lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>Wilkinson <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:

Good afternoon:

With respect, this is the first time that I have perceived that in 2012, Geo-Names Review was different from the Geo-Names Panel. I shall try and get my head around that!

Meanwhile, it would clearly be an advantage to have a review function available for ALL Geo-related applications, up front, BEFORE applicants and the mechanisms spend time and money on the approval procedures.

I have already posted several comments that would significantly reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications. Pour Memoire:

1.  The application should be from an entity within the jurisdiction of the geo-name in question, and the proposed TLD Registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction. There should not be any incorporations in third country tax havens.

2.  There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may be applied for by any one entity.

3.  The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?)

Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and during implementation.

Regards

CW

PS:  Since all applications for Geo-Names should have received non-objection letters from the appropriate authorities, I might imagine that the scope for String Contention would be considerably reduced if not eliminated.

_______________________________________________
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/20180516/da09711c/attachment-0001.html>