[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