[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters
alexander at schubert.berlin
Mon Sep 24 12:03:09 UTC 2018
"Dortmund" is a good example; albeit hypothetical: no such beer is existing.
But there is a "JEVER" beer - a brand that I have seen in many countries.
It's named after the city of Jever in northern Germany.
I really don't think that a (any) brand that is "free-riding" (legally,
though) on the positive image of a city community (built over centuries by
their constituents) should be allowed to take the city's identity in the DNS
"off market" - just to egoistically represent themselves. That doesn't "fly"
in Germany. Actually in most if not all of Europe that wouldn't fly. However
I think that especially for sizeable city entities such case would be rather
rare: The main risk is that portfolio applicants are raiding geo name land
globally, oblivious (unconcerned) of the target community's needs
(interests) but only yielding the short lived requirements of their VC
funders: making cash FAST! In a wood analogy that would be:
Portfolio applicant: cut all the wood, and sell it; never mind the resulting
erosion or lost living environment for the forests inhabitants.
City constituent owned, funded and policied applicant: MANAGE the usage of
the wood in a way that creates a balance for all involved parties and their
While we are elaborating about the narrative of "legitimate interest":
I think it leads us down a rabbit hole by judging the potential "legitimate
interest" of the applicant entity. In the end of the day it all boils down
to have policies and an active TLD management in place that meets the
legitimate interest of the TARGET COMMUNITY; and it is the obligation of the
applicant to meet those interests! This is not about the egoistic "interest"
of the applicant (e.g. the interest to make fast ROI for his investors).
Maybe I have different priorities than Robin - but for me THE PEOPLE come
first: not the "interest" of some applicant entity. A city name based gTLD
is a piece of city infrastructure. It has to be suitable for the city's
constituents. Their representatives (the city authority) is most likely best
suited to evaluate whether the legitimate interests of said city community
are being met.
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On
Behalf Of Marita Moll
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 2:15 AM
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
Sorry Robin, I am trying to figure out what you mean in the following
sentence: "Again, it would still prevent TLDs that have no legitimate
interest in a geo-word from going forward, but it would allow for other
legitimate users to have an opportunity to register the TLD of a word that
falls into one of the existing geo-word categories as well."
Suppose the beer company Dortmund wants to register .dortmund (a city in
Germany) -- only to promote its brand. The beer does come from Dortmund so
there is a city connection. Would that be legitimate or not in your book?
What is "legitimate interest?" and "non-legitimate interest" and who
On 9/23/2018 5:14 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> I disagree, Jorge. We already have an intended use standard for
noncapital city names, so it is something that has already been part of the
existing policy with respect to some categories of geo-names. This proposal
just takes ICANN's existing policy for noncapital city names and applies it
to the other categories of geo-names that are in the guidebook. Again, it
would still prevent TLDs that have no legitimate interest in a geo-word from
going forward, but it would allow for other legitimate users to have an
opportunity to register the TLD of a word that falls into one of the
existing geo-word categories as well. Rather than take a "one side takes
all" approach as we currently have, which allows one interest to extract
"rents" or other concessions from anyone who also has a legitimate interest
in using that string, we could try to balance the legitimate interests in
order to be fair to all sides. It is worth considering if we are sincere
about finding a compromise.
>> On Sep 21, 2018, at 8:04 PM, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
>> 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
>> ps: I'll be on leave some days, so excuse me if I don't react for a
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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!
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5