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

Wed May 16 22:21:24 UTC 2018

Alexander:

Couldn't your scenario of an applicant applying for multiple city names simply be covered by the requirement that an applicant needs city approval if they are using the TLD related to the city name?  In other words, an applicant blanketing the round with city applications should by definition be using the TLD as related to the city and require city approval.  We easily could amend the 2012 language to make that clear.

Christopher:

I definitely disagree with your statement below and there have been many interventions on the list over the past weeks objecting to the abandonment you propose.
>>> 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?)

For the record, I also object to your other two proposals -- 1) requiring or prohibiting specific locations for incorporation and 2) limiting the number of applications per applicant.

Best,

Jon

> On May 16, 2018, at 5:53 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:
> 
> Hi Liz,
> 
> I am NOT suggesting to limit the number of applications per applicant – partly because it can always be gamed. What I am suggesting is that a few entities will blanket the ENTIRE city gTLD namespace with thousands of applications. And sorry: I am steadfast convinced that none of those registries will be willing or able to serve the city constituent’s interests!
> 
> And therefore we make rules that PROTECT the interests of the citizens and constituencies and stakeholder groups in a city: by requiring support by their elected Government!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alexander
> 
> 
> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Williams
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:40 AM
> To: Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com>
> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name
> 
> 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 <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 <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 <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/20180516/1d2c73fc/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180516/1d2c73fc/signature-0001.asc>