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

Mon Sep 24 12:30:34 UTC 2018

Dear Robin
Tks for reply
My answers are below
You said
*"1.  When I say “connection to the authority”, I’m referring to the legal
authority or the government of the place (geo-word).  So a TLD applicants
could not misrepresent that they speak for or on behalf of the government
of that place - that is the harm we are trying to present.  If TLD
applicants are intending to give that impression to the public, that they
speak for or on behalf of that government, then they would need to obtain
the proper letter of support from the government.  This is largely the same
as existing law in many countries.  Just because the words “Chicago” are
used, people do not automatically assume the govt of Chicago is the speaker
or authorizing whatever words come next and who can make them."*
My answer
Still I do not understand  when and how and why the applicant speaks for
the authority ?
What public?
How it occurs?
Pls describe the circumstances that occurs.
I have always been in favour of letter of support from the concerned
government
 *2. Yes, the proposal would have the policy for capital city names remain
the same, with the letters required, regardless of intended use.*
My answer
*Pls explore what really you are addressing?*

*3.  The list of different geo categories comes from the ICANN Guidebook,
so these are the exhaustive list  of geo-categories that currently exists
in the Guidebook.  The different types of geo-categories specifically
listed are: 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”.*
My answer
And so what ?
General Comments
I am sorry there is no consensus elements in this vague suggestion
 Regards
Kavouss

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 2:03 PM Alexander Schubert
<alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:

> Hi Marita,
>
> "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
> interests.
>
> 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.
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> 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
> decides?
>
> Thanks
>
> Marita
>
>
>
> 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.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Robin
> >
> >> 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
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180924/66040736/attachment-0001.html>