[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT 5 Suggestion: a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name
Marita Moll
mmoll at ca.inter.net
Sat Oct 6 10:50:42 UTC 2018
I truly admire Alexander's attempt to extract some minimal protection
for city names from this round of discussions and I fully support it.
This suggested wording adjustment is a long way from the hope that the
names of 1M+ cities be set aside and hopefully, that discussion is not
completely over. But I think it is time for all parties to this
discussion to find a way to modify their positions and support such a
proposal.
Marita
On 10/5/2018 3:00 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
>
> Dear Jorge,
>
> I am very much in agreement with your notion! However: the way the
> discussion turns out right now it seems there is a fair chance that we
> do not find agreement to ANY changes to the 2012 AGBs. And in absence
> of agreement to change something: the 2012 AGB specifications will
> remain in power!
>
> It’s the typical issue of “Realpolitik”:
>
> I am in agreement with you that ALL city names should be specially
> treated. At minimum if they exceed a certain size. But it seems that
> despite of a LOT of efforts to reach agreement – nothing happened. If
> we ask “less” – then agreement might be at least established.
>
> I see these typical threat scenarios:
>
> 1.An applicant targets a (usually HUGE – because only they are
> profitable) city, but wants to circumvent the requirement for the
> letter of support! As per the 2012 AGB this is more than easy: just
> say that you are NOT have the intent to use the gTLD primary for
> purposes associated with the city name; and you are done! Nothing
> ICANN could do about it. A clear flaw in the applicant guidebook that
> luckily wasn’t exploited in 2012 (for reasons that I will outline over
> the weekend). My new suggestion would solve this scenario!
>
> 2.An applicant goes for a real generic term (one that is broadly used
> in the DNS) – but inadvertently (circumstantially, accidentally)
> targets a smallish city. If the city is small – it is unlikely that it
> would ever go for its name as gTLD. So no real harm done. And if it is
> HUGE: the mechanism proposed by me would require the applicant to
> acquire the letter of non-objection.
>
> 3.The only real problem occurs if a BRAND applies for a closed gTLD –
> which allows them to maintain that the use will NOT be to a
> “significant degree for purposes associated with the city name”. If
> the city is smallish: Again, they anyway won’t go for a gTLD. So no
> harm done. If the city is HUGE: only in that case we had a real
> problem! In that case the city would have to entertain a formal
> objection via GAC. It is my hope that such case occurs rather seldom.
>
> So in most cases we would have established what we want: preventing
> the circumvention of the support requirement. Albeit: if we don’t
> agree to such measure – the original 2012 AGB provisions will stay in
> place – and nobody is protected in ANY way. Cities are sitting ducks –
> and Silcon Valley VC money will team up with Shareholder Value and
> raid cities globally. And honestly: who wants their city gTLD being
> guided by “U.S. Shareholder Values” instead of a local alliance of
> city constituents in teamwork with their city authority?
>
> In that respect: how do you plan to achieve your goal of protecting
> “all cities”? By eliminating the “non-geo use provision” altogether?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander
>
> *From:*Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 05, 2018 3:30 PM
> *To:* alexander at schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT 5 Suggestion: a) The geo name
> panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by
> registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated
> with the city name
>
> Dear Alexander
>
> Thanks very much for your efforts!
>
> As you will recall, I’m of the view (shared by others) that «intended
> use» should be eliminated altogether from the rule applicable to city
> names – for the reasons that are on record.
>
> Essentially, whatever the use, the TLD is a unique resource, and its
> delegation, even if the use is determined to be non-geographic, means
> that the city identifier is delegated away… – this is IMO a
> sufficient reason to have the local authorities at the table before
> the applicant gets too far into the application process – so we avoid
> surprises and we also avoid the applicant investing important sums
> before it is clear that all interested parties at least do not object.
>
> Just as a reminder: Swiss cities (as cities in other countries
> following the civil code tradition) have rights under the law on their
> names – the intended use is not a key factor in that respect.
> Therefore, they need to be consulted beforehand if we want to avoid
> conflicts in such situations.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Jorge
>
> *Von:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>> *Im Auftrag von
> *Alexander Schubert
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 5. Oktober 2018 14:02
> *An:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT 5 Suggestion: a) The geo name
> panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by
> registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated
> with the city name
>
> Dear Dessalegn,
>
> Thank you for the question!
>
> My notion was that we utilize the foreseeable (projectable) actual
> “use” by registrants to determine the association with the city name.
> But maybe it avoids confusion if we would shorten it to:
>
> */An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic
> names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or
> non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if:/*
>
> 2012 AGB: */a) It is clear from applicant statements within the
> application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes
> associated with the city name/*
>
> Revision: */a) The geo name panel determines that it is foreseeable
> that registrants will use the TLD to a significant degreefor purposes
> associated with the city name/*
>
> The English here is slightly garbled (two time “that” – not very
> eloquent) but now it is as short as the original and 2^nd level
> domains aren’t mentioned any more. And you are right: It’s mainly the
> gTLD portion of the domains registered by registrants that determine
> the “use”!
>
> Has anybody any suggestion for a better wording? Is there some support
> for the notion that we should NOT rely on “statements of the
> applicant” but rather have a neutral body (geo name panel) using
> “common sense” to determine whether or not a letter of support is
> needed; and at that on the basis of foreseeable actual “use” by the
> registrants? ICANN should (as discussed many times before) provide
> prospective applicants with the opportunity to have such test
> conducted many month ahead of the application period. This way in the
> probably extremely rare case that an applicant would feel treated
> unjust they could prepare extra information and get extra evidence to
> bolster their “case”. Or they simply get the letter of non-objection.
>
> What this “litmus test” does is essentially compare generic use with
> city use. A good generic term which has at least the CHANCE of
> fetching a high registration volume vs. a smallish city: No problem!
> But if somebody is targeting a city name that isn’t even identical to
> a generic term (Shanghai, Chicago): then we can bust those who try to
> avoid the requirement of a letter of support by the city government.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander
>
> *From:*Dessalegn Yehuala [mailto:mequanint.yehuala at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 05, 2018 11:51 AM
> *To:* alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT 5 Suggestion: a) The geo name
> panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by
> registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated
> with the city name
>
> Dear Alexander,
>
> Just one small comment on the text your proposed to be revised from
> the AGB 2012- "*/a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable
> use of 2^nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant
> degree for purposes associated with the city name"/*
>
> The WT5 is mandated to deal with issues that surround the treatment of
> geographic string identifiers at the top level, wouldn't 2nd level be
> out of scope?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Dessalegn
>
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 5:49 PM Alexander Schubert
> <alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>> wrote:
>
> Hi WT 5,
>
> Over the weekend I will submit a longer comment about the issue of
> the terminology in “recommendation 11” = non-capital cities (pages
> 4 and 5 of 21 in the word document “/DRAFT - WT5 Initial Report -
> Sections C-E - 27.9.2018 - with comments-1/”)
>
> The text right now states (unchanged from the 2012 AGB) that
> applicants ONLY require a “letter of non-objection” from the
> relevant authorities (city government) if:
>
> */a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application
> that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes
> associated with the city name/*
>
> I will elaborate on both: “*/use/*” (by the applicant) and
> “*/primarily/*”. In my mind BOTH will have to be reversed:
>
> ·“foreseeable use” by the “REGISTRANTS” (rather than then
> “intended or projected use by the applicant entity”)
>
> ·and not limited to “primary use”– but something like “significant
> use”. “Primarily” could arguably be considered “90% or more”.
> “Significant” would probably start at 20% or the like. The geo
> panel would need a few guidelines here as well!
>
> I don’t care what or what not an applicant is dreaming of – that
> needs to be determined by the geo panel! If it is a closed brand
> application: obviously the case is clear. If it is a generic term
> like “rock” (music) and there is a small city of a few thousand
> people named “Rock”: it’s kind of clear that the significant
> majority of registrants will use the 2^nd level domains in
> connotation with “Rock Music” (or other generic meanings of the
> term “rock” like moon.rock). But if somebody were to apply for an
> open gTLD .chicago, .shanghai or .frankfurt and would claim that
> there is “no primary use associated with the city intended” –
> sorry: then the applicant is either delusional or tries to
> circumvent the necessity to acquire a letter of non-objection from
> the relevant city Government. This litmus test should NOT be
> outsourced to the APPLICANT – but it should be a task executed by
> the geo-panel. You can’t make the goat the gardener. At least WE
> (ICANN) should not do so. A brand or a real generic term based
> application that is only “circumstantially” targeting a small city
> – that is one thing. Somebody applying for “.shanghai” trying to
> play tricks on the geo panel (and in fact on the entire ICANN
> community, and the city community of Shanghai): not cool. Doesn’t fly.
>
> In my email I will also specifically explain why this is deemed a
> risk in the next round when there weren’t any notable problems in
> the 2012 round. If anybody is interested in hearing my notion on
> that problematic: shout out to me – and I will elaborate further.
>
> In that light I suggest the following language (this is so to
> speak the litmus test whether an applicant needs a letter of
> non-objection).
>
> */An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic
> names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or
> non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities)
> if:/*
>
> 2012 AGB: */a) It is clear from applicant statements within the
> application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for
> purposes associated with the city name/*
>
> Revision: */a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable
> use of 2^nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant
> degreefor purposes associated with the city name/*
>
> This way a brand applicant should generally have no problem at all
> (closed gTLD). And an applicant for a generic dictionary term with
> broad utilization in the DNS should also have no problems. But we
> would prevent that lazy (or cheating) applicants skip the line –
> and go for a city name WITHOUT looping in the city. That would be
> unfair to applicants that get the city’s support, unfair to the
> city itself and unfair to the city’s constituents.
>
> Comments? It would be nice if members that support this language
> would make themselves heard. I would wish to see my recommendation
> prominently positioned in the report – that will only happen if my
> notion finds support.
>
> Alexander.berlin
>
> *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
> *Julie Hedlund
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 04, 2018 12:43 AM
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 03 October 2018
>
> Dear Work Track 5 members,
>
> Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today
> (03 October). /These high-level notes are designed to help WG
> members navigate through the content of the call and are not a
> substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will
> be posted on the wiki./
>
> Please also find attached the referenced document in PDF and Word
> including comments.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Notes/Action Items:*
>
> *Actions:*
>
> ACTION ITEM: Preliminary recommendation #2: Add a footnote
> explaining what "character" means
>
> *Notes:*
>
> 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates
>
> 2. Draft Initial Report Sections: Preliminary Recommendations,
> Options, and Questions
>
> -- Comments about missing points -- the deliberation sections are
> still to come. This is just three sections of six.
>
> -- These are just arguments/recommendations/options at this point.
>
> -- The question is are these the right alternatives to put out for
> public comment.
>
> -- Questions for community input -- asking if these make sense and
> if anything is missing.
>
> -- Any content is subject to public comment.
>
> Preliminary recommendation #1:
>
> -- Use of the word "certain" suggests there are other strings we
> have not addressed. Suggest deleting the word.
>
> -- Can we make it clear here that we are talking about the AGB as
> written rather than as applied? I don't think we want as applied.
>
> Preliminary recommendation #2:
>
> -- Question: We don't give any explanation for why we are making
> this recommendation. Answer: The explanation will be reflected in
> the deliberations in the Initial Report. Section C is just the
> text of the deliberations. There will be much more text in
> Section F on the deliberations, including pros and cons.
>
> -- Looking at the last bullet point re: WT2 considering
> letter-number combinations -- should this also refer to
> number-number combinations?
>
> ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote explaining what "character" means.
>
> Preliminary recommendation #3:
>
> -- Move this into the category of strings that could be applied
> for with documentation on support or non-objection.
>
> -- See also comments from Christopher Wilkinson.
>
> -- There were discussions about how many of these are generic
> words as well as three-letter country codes. There was a wider
> debate that was outside of scope since it was ccNSO territory.
> With that in mind that is how we got to this recommendation.
> There was quite a lot of debate on this.
>
> -- Do we need to clarify that we are not recommending that any
> 3-character codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard be removed
> from delegation? Or that .com should be removed from delegation?
>
> -- Could have country names that could be delegated -- if Canada
> wants .canada there should be a pathway for them to getting it.
>
> -- Not in favor of allowing the delegation of geographic names for
> non-geographic use.
>
> Preliminary recommendation #4:
>
> -- The problem is that we have not gotten agreement on prior
> authorization and geographical use. As long as we have no
> consensus we have to maintain this restriction.
>
> Recommendation #5:
>
> -- Question: We say we recommend continuing something in the AGB
> but then we say it's a revision. Are we saying the AGB is
> inconsistent with GNSO policy? Answer: Some members would like to
> see whether there is a discrepancy between the AGB and the policy
> -- so saying it is consistent with the AGB, but is not consistent
> with the policy.
>
> -- Suggest: "As noted above this recommendation is consistent with
> the AGB as written [not "as drafted"] and doesn't address the
> issue of translation of these strings. However, this is a
> revision to GNSO policy..."
>
> -- Agree with the change above but not the order. You had the
> policy first and then the AGB.
>
> -- Maybe need an explanation somewhere at the beginning of the
> document.
>
> Preliminary recommendation #6
>
> -- The only thing that is listed are the code --- there are no
> names associated with a code as "exceptionally reserved".
>
> -- This is a category that was in the 2012 AGB.
>
> -- Example is "UK" -- The code is reserved on the ISO site, but
> not the name.
>
> -- Append a list for the actual report.
>
> -- When there is something reserved it doesn't mean that it is
> connected the specific area where we talk about it. As to whether
> there is a list -- there used to be a list available on request
> from the ISO secretariat.
>
> Preliminary recommendation #7: No objections
>
> Preliminary recommendation #8: Third bullet has same issue as
> mentioned above -- No "exceptionally reserved" in the ISO 3166.
>
> Preliminary recommendation #9: No objections
>
> Preliminary recommendation #10: No objections
>
> Preliminary recommendation #11:
>
> Comments from the list:
>
> -- Discussion of intended use is included in the deliberation
> section, including pros and cons.
>
> -- Comment premature to include this preliminary recommendation as
> it stands.
>
> -- Consider the use of the word "primarily" as in "use the TLD
> primarily for purposes associated with the city name". Maybe it
> isn't quite the right word, but we would want to avoid unintended
> consequences. Also, not clear what we mean by "use". This
> language was in the 2012 AGB -- not saying it was perfect, but
> don't recall this ever becoming an issue with a city name. Before
> we suggest changes let's look at what happened in 2012.
>
> -- One could also say if the applicant considers any use for the
> city he will have to get a letter from the city.
>
> -- There has been a lot of back and forth on this issue -- we need
> to really take a look at whether we want to foreclose a bunch of
> words.
>
> -- Ignores free expression rights to use words with geographic
> meaning in lawful ways.
>
> -- Could address by putting in a contractual requirement that is
> more specific continuing to not use a TLD in a geographic sense.
>
> Preliminary recommendation #12:
>
> -- Need a separate recommendation dealing with the currency codes
> (ISO 4217). they are very important in the financial markets.
>
> -- Don't support adding protection of the currency code.
>
> -- The sub-national place names should be open for reservation for
> non-geographic uses without a letter of support or non-objection.
>
> 2. ICANN63:
>
> -- Released 3 subsections of the Initial Report. Only a few
> comments so far.
>
> -- Idea is to give people another week to submit comment, and then
> we will release the full package of the Initial Report.
>
> -- Idea is that in addition to doing status updates and outreach
> at ICANN63 we'll have time to potentially get broader community
> input on issues, as well as to note what might be missing.
>
> -- Three sessions on Saturday morning with lunch at the last session.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181006/0c22c261/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list