[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!

[Susan Payne]

Well Alexander, this is a perfect example of why if you are going to agree with the wide-ranging and imprecise assertions of others then it would be well to be clear exactly what you are agreeing with.  You actually do not agree with Christopher at all –or at least in large part.

What’s called a city seems to vary greatly from country to country.  I’ve been to UK fishing villages that are bigger than “cities” in some other countries.  The AGB just refers to a “city” but without defining what that is.  Not that there’s any basis at law of course for the AGB city consent requirements, just for the avoidance of doubt.


Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd
28-30 Little Russell StreetWell
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 22:33
To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!

Susan,

Your comment is very valuable:

We HAVE to prevent that places like “rock” have veto rights over brand or generic term based gTLDs! The “Rock” (in Cornwall) you mentioned is a “fishing village” – and as such DOESN’T require any letter of non-objection per the 2012 AGB at all! But the point itself is well taken:

We need to qualify a threshold for protection – most likely by quantifying the population! If we have a 10,000 (or 50,000) inhabitant cut-off: the overlay between those sizeable cities and brands and or generic terms is MINIMAL!

Thanks,

Alexander





From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:23 AM
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>; 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>

Agreed Greg
Christopher, you appear to be suggesting that the term “rock” since it happens to be the name of at least one small town in Cornwall, England, and possibly elsewhere, could not be used as a TLD by  geologists, landscapers, musicians, etc etc.  On what possible legal, or indeed policy, basis?  So no, you may not take that as agreed.


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 Greg Shatan
Sent: 16 May 2018 21:46
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.





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180516/8ea276ca/attachment-0001.html>