[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Draft sections of WT5 Initial Report for WT review

Fri Sep 28 18:16:21 UTC 2018

Dear Emily, Dear Friends and Colleagues:

Please find below and in the attachments, my initial  - and no doubt partial - comments on this initial draft.

I note that the balance of the presentation leans too heavily towards maintaining the 2007 and 2012 situation. Also there are serious lacunae notably concerning ISO 4217 alpha-3 codes and Geographical Indications.

Regards

Christopher Wilkinson

----------------------------

Draft of Initial Report Sections c, d, and e.

Initial comments, corrections and suggestions

Christopher Wilkinson

This is a brief reaction and correction to the Draft of Initial Report Sections, of 27 September. I expect that we shall have an opportunity to discuss this at the next conference call on 3 October. Meanwhile I must say that the balance of this initial draft leans too heavily towards maintaining the 2007 and 2012 positions whereas the very creation and cross-community composition of WT5 was designed to correct those previous experiences.

RECOMMENDATION #1

The use of the term 'certain strings' implies prematurely that there will be other strings that are not protected. There is not a consensus on that point.

Remedy: please delete 'certain'.

RECOMMENDATIOM #11

This text, and elsewhere, omits to refer to the issue of non-geographical use. Whereas that has been a major issue for Work Track 5. The recommendation must address non-geographical use as also requiring prior authorisation.

Use of geographical names for 'generic and brand contexts' has the major Drawback that future geographical use would be prevented, whereas under Proposed Problem6.1, (p.16) we have Proposed solution 6.1.2 “… to maximize the opportunities for future applicants for geographic names.” (Names that meanwhile have been freely available for non-geographic use. I don't think so!)

This dichotomy must be explained clearly in the text.

Remedy: The onlyexception to geographic use could be limited to pre-existingtrademark rights recognised in the jurisdiction concerned and subject to prior authorisations.

Recommendation #12

In spite of several references in meetings and on the List, there is still no reference to the three letter currency codes in ISO 4217. The currency codes are derived directly from ISO 3166, and consequently in this context are the competence of WT5.

Failure to appropriately protect the currency codes (which are by definition national or regional) could give rise to serious difficulties further down the line. I would argue that this is even more important than the three letter country codes in ISO 3166.

d. What are the options under consideration…

Non-Capital City Names

The text, again, presupposes that non-geographical use is not protected. We know very well by now that this would not be acceptable.

Specifically, the reference to 'curative' measures in this context is unrealistic.

Furthermore the appeal to 'the overall design of the program…' is perplexing. What is this 'overall design' that obliges WT5 to consider unsustainable proposals?

The reference in sub para 3 to 'Objectors pay for the objection…' is so far off-the-wall, that I am surprised that it is still being maintained. Note that in any eventual 'curative' regime for non-geographic use, most of the objectors might be private parties.

Sub para 8 on preventing misrepresentation (p.10) and elsewhere:

This proposal has been made very recently by one WT5 member, several other members have already explained why it falls far short of adequate protection of geographic names and it has not yet been discussed by WT5 as a whole. It is surprising that it has already made it to an 'Option' in thisca Draft Initial Report. It would be a large step backwards in the existing levels of protection.

N.B. The concept of a 'bright-line rule' (p.11) is not widely used or understood (not included in the OED). Quite apart from the merits of the case, if any, that expression is likely to suffer considerably in translation.

1. Too Little Restriction… (p.14)

The drawbacks to Proposed Solution 3.2.1 should be clearly expressed, including a clear need in such a case for Incorporation in the Jurisdiction concerned.

We know from ccTLD experience that it can be quite difficult and time consuming for a government to 'become engaged' with a misappropriated TLD that is operated outside the national jurisdiction.

Additional Categories or Terms (p.20) – Geographical Indications

One would have thought, after all the time and effort that has been expended on Work Track 5, that there should be a specific Recommendation on Geographical Indications. To find these relegated, again, to an afterthought right at the end of the document, is not correct.

We know from the previous Round that the issue is a live one and must be addressed. Appropriate text is available on the List and in the Transcripts.

____________

CW/ 28 September 2018

> El 27 de septiembre de 2018 a las 20:11 Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org> escribió:
> 
> 
>     Dear WT5 members,
> 
>      
> 
>     Please find attached draft text for the following sections of the Initial Report:
> 
>      
> 
>         * c. What are the preliminary recommendations and/or implementation guidelines?
>         * d. What are the options under consideration, along with the associated benefits / drawbacks?
>         * e. What specific questions are the PDP WG seeking feedback on?
> 
>      
> 
>     These sections will be discussed on our upcoming call scheduled for Wednesday 3 October at 20:00 UTC. Please review this document prior to the call. If you would like to provide comments or raise concerns about sections of the text prior to the call for further discussion on the call, please send your comments in the body of an email, clearly identifying the page number and passage on which you are commenting. Please do not send your own redline version of the text to the mailing list. Given the very large number of WT members, it will be very difficult to reconcile many different redline versions.
> 
>      
> 
>     The following sections of the report are still being drafted and will be shared when ready:
> 
>      
> 
>         * a.     What is the relevant 2007 policy and/or implementation guidance (if any)?
>         * b.     How was it implemented in the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program?
>         * f.      Deliberations
>         * g.     Are there other activities in the community that may serve as a dependency or future input to this topic?
> 
>      
> 
>     The Deliberations section will contain the summary of different positions and perspectives raised in WT discussions and on the mailing list.
> 
>      
> 
>     Kind regards,
> 
>     Emily
> 
>      
> 
>     Emily Barabas | Policy Manager
> 
>     ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> 
>     Email: emily.barabas at icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
> 
>      
> 

> _______________________________________________
>     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/20180928/0624855f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CW comments and correctiopns 28:09.odt
Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text
Size: 36795 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180928/0624855f/09-0001.odt>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CW comments and correctiopns 28:09.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 66855 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180928/0624855f/09-0001.pdf>