[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

Sun Oct 7 12:08:37 UTC 2018

Dear Liz,

You have set out an interesting resulting path to the suggested abolishing
of the "intended use" concept.

Permit me to further inquire with the group as to the role of letters of
support or non-objection under this scenario -- would letters be required
in the event an applied-for string is geographic name by any category
defined the AGB (as drafted) or as determined by a geonames panel or if an
objection is filed raising a "geographic name conflict etc"?

Justine Chew
-----

On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 19:17, Liz Williams via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> wrote:

> Hello everyone
>
> I have been watching these ongoing discussions carefully.  The title of
> the email thread doesn’t capture the essence of my email but  I wanted to
> test a couple of other ideas.
>
> If there is consensus on “intended use being meaningless”and that
> “intended use” cannot be a gating factor for applicants to apply for TLDs
> then it means that “intended use” would
>
> A) not be part of any application materials for evaluation purposes (for
> example, one could describe intended use as part of a business plan but it
> wouldn’t be used as a criteria against which an application is measured).
>
> B) if “intended use” was not part of the application evaluation process
> then it logically follows that there should not be negative scores from
> independent evaluators or other panellists about what the applicant wishes
> to use the TLD for
>
> C) it then follows that objections to any application on the basis of
> intended use would not be allowed?
>
> This is quite a dramatic shift for us.  If we had done things this way
> based on the 2007 policy and the 2012 AGB then it would have saved a lot of
> applicants who followed all the rules correctly a lot of heartache; it
> would have prevented many independent and external evaluations and it would
> have dramatically reduced, perhaps, interventions by the ICANN Board.
>
> It opens the door for a fourth round of the expansion of the domain name
> system to be much clearer and less “interfering” in driving business plans
> of applicants.  It minimises (perhaps to the point of irrelevance any
> community priority evaluations?) and it makes for a much flatter
> application structure.  For me, those are good outcomes but others will
> have different opinions which I think we should tease out.
>
> Very interested to hear other people’s views.
>
> Liz
>
> ….
> Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance
> M: +44 7824 877757 :: +61 436 020 595
> W: www.lizwilliams.net
> S:  lizwilliams1963
>
> 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 7 Oct 2018, at 10:49 am, Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone at ebu.ch> wrote:
>
> I TOTALLY AGREE AND SHARE WHAT JORGE SAID.
> "intended use" is meaningless, as we concluded after many rounds of
> discussion.
> Giacomo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> Sent: samedi 22 septembre 2018 05:05
> To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify
> existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters
>
> Dear all
>
> "Intended use" is very far from representing a compromise proposal.
>
> We have had the debate on this idea for more than a year, so it is of
> little use and efficiency for us repeating arguments that are abundantly
> reflected on the record, and, as I recall, in the working document.
>
> Let's see what the public consultation brings on these questions.
>
> best regards
>
> Jorge
>
> ps: I'll be on leave some days, so excuse me if I don't react for a while.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Datum: 21. September 2018 um 23:18:39 MESZ
> An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing
> geo-category policy of when to require govt letters
>
> Hello,
>
> In follow-up to our WT5 meeting discussion earlier this week, I wanted to
> provide a more precise proposal for an amendment to policy requiring a
> govt. letter of support / non-objection from applicants of TLDs that are
> geo-words other than capital city names.
>
> The goal here is to target the harm to be prevented from a
> misrepresentation that the TLD speaks for the local authority when it isn't
> the case, while also allowing for other legitimate uses of a geo-word TLD
> to go forward.  So it is an attempt to balance two legitimate interests in
> a way that can find room for preventing the bad acts, but allowing lawful
> TLD uses to go forward.  It is a proposal for compromise to find middle
> ground.
>
> In short: applicants who intend to represent a connection to the authority
> of a non-capital city or other geo-category from the guidebook will need to
> provide a letter of support/non-objection as a means of verifying that
> connection.
>
> However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the
> authority of the non-capital city or the other geo-categories from the
> guidebook, protections will be enhanced by inserting contractual
> requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from
> misrepresenting their connection or association to the geo-word.
>
> Putting aside capital cities, we will leave them as the policy currently
> exists, we would ONLY require the govt. letter for the other geo-words IF
> the use represents a connection to the authority.  So that would apply to
> non-capital city names and sub-national, unesco, etc. categories where
> govt. letters are currently at issue.
>
> More precisely worded proposal:
> Applicants who intend to represent a connection the the authority of a
> city, sub-national place, unesco region, or appearing on the "Composition
> of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and
> selected economic and other groupings" list will need to provide a letter
> of support/non-objection.
>
> However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the
> authority of the geographic terms listed above, protections will instead be
> achieved by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement
> that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or
> association to the geographic term.
>
> I do invite comments, questions, and suggestions about this proposed
> amendment to the existing policy for geo-categories.  I don't claim this is
> a perfect proposal, but discussion could possibly help lead us to a better
> policy that attempts to balance differing legitimate interests in a more
> nuanced way than what we've got now.
>
> Thank you!
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> **************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the system
> manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
> by the mailgateway
> **************************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> 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/20181007/868a0dbe/attachment.html>