[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 28 November 2018 at 20:00 UTC
alexander at schubert.berlin
Wed Nov 28 13:13:22 UTC 2018
The “formerly called bright line” rule proposal (page 79 of 117 in the WT5 Report PDF of Nov 27) states:
Proposal: Apply a clear and unambiguous rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected. No objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration
In my view non-capital city name based gTLD strings are ONLY “explicitly and expressly protected” by the “Geographic Names Review” if:
“It is clear from applicant statements within the
application that the applicant will use the TLD
primarily for purposes associated with the city
Quote 126.96.36.199.2 2.(a) of the 2012 AGB
In other words: If an applicant DOESN’T make clear that he wants to use the string PRIMARELY “for purposes associated with the city name” – then in my mind per the current AGB provisions such string is NOT “explicitly and expressly protected” – hence the applicant does not need to provide city government support! In other words: The way the “bright line proposal” is formulated today would lead to a ban of “gTLD civil rights”: no objections allowed!
But the author of the bright line rule asserted, that it is his intention that ALL non-capital city name based applications (whether or not geo-use intent is present) would NOT be subject to the bright line rule:
Greg in his email from November 19 2018:
I think you are misinterpreting my proposal, and misunderstanding and mis-presenting it as well.
First, the proposal relates only to strings that are not expressly protected as geographic terms in the AGB. If "Shanghai" is a non-capital city name (which it is), and we have a provision that protects "non-capital city names," then this proposal would not apply to an application for .shanghai.
In this light (but only if Greg approves):
My suggestion would be to change the bright line rule into:
Proposal: Apply a clear and unambiguous rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly impacted by the geographic names review is unprotected. No objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration
Obviously I am open to other ways to edit of Greg’s proposal. But the wording “explicitly and expressly protected” is pretty clear! It would EXCEMPT non-capital city name based gTLD applications if the applicants wouldn’t declare to PRIMARELY target the city. So a “.shanghai” being applied the exact same way as “.bike” could not be objected by the Shanghai Government or the Shanghai stakeholder group of local constituents. Do we really want that?
Right now I am quoted on this with comment “A110R107” (page 79 of 117 – comments at the right):
Suggested altering the proposal to state “A brand or
generic term based application that is NOT a city,
subnational division, unesco region would simply pass
the geographic names review WITHOUT any further
investigation. So it would not be “impacted” by it.
However a non-capital city name would be always
impacted, as the panel had to start evaluating the
application – trying to find out whether the applicant
intends to use it “primarily for purposes associated with
the city name”.
That’s not my “suggested alteration” – but part of my EXPLAINATION why the bright line rule is harmful! Please change this into:
Suggested altering the proposal to state “Proposal: Apply a
clear and unambiguous rule that any geographic term that
is not explicitly and expressly impacted by the geographic
names review is unprotected. No objection or non-consent
can be used to stop its registration.”
He claims that the current version of the proposal would eliminate
the right to object to non-capital city name based gTLD applications
that do not require a letter of non-objection; making it impossible
for vulnerable city communities to defend their gTLD namespace
against gTLD squatting, extortion and abuse.
Again: please do NOT alter Greg’s proposal without his consent. But please correct my “A110R107” comment.
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 12:42 PM
To: emily.barabas at icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 28 November 2018 at 20:00 UTC
Please include the following comments in the consideration:
- Page 12: “Treatment of these strings was inconsistent.” --> this is just the opinion expressed (as far as I know) by one member. “inconsistent” is a value call. We could say that there were different treatments – whether that differentiation was inconsistent or not has not been agreed.
- Page 42: the following heading/intro seems to reflect an agreed view, when it is only the view of “some”, hence it should read “Some of the issues problems and negative experiences that some Work Track members identified from the 2012 round include the following.”
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 Emily Barabas
Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. November 2018 20:52
An: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 28 November 2018 at 20:00 UTC
Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call taking place tomorrow 28 November 2018 at 20:00 UTC for 90 mins.
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates
2. Initial Report – Outstanding Items
- Additional information request – Geographic Names Panel
Please find attached the latest version of the draft Initial Report. This version incorporates new feedback received in the last week. New comments are highlighted in either blue or yellow. For those highlighted in blue, the resolution was relatively straightforward and staff has proposed edits. Comments in yellow require additional input and will be discussed on the call tomorrow.
Emily Barabas | Policy Manager
ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: <mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org> emily.barabas at icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5