[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] My comment on the message of: 12 August 2019 20:33, follow.

[lists at christopherwilkinson.eu]

Dear Olga, Dear WT5 participants:

My comment on the message of: 12 August 2019 20:33, follow.

Good evening:

CW
-
1. Translations/Languages: 

I support the 'any language' option. On reflection and in the light of the debate, the drawbacks are less significant than the risks and lacunae arising from any other solution.

However, this is on the basis of the merits of the case. In general, I do not accept that the 2012 AGB is in any sense a 'default.
 
Additional Categories of Terms Not Included in the 2012 AGB:

All Geo-Terms should be protected and subject to prior authorisation or express non.-objection.

I admire the ingenuity of Jorge's new proposal, which might have been a basis for further discussion, however, it is already clear that other participants are not prepared to compromise in the same way.

I also support the creation of an Advisory Geo-names Panel with a broad mandate. To date, WT5 has been critically lacking in geographical knowledge, whether spacial, cultural, political or economic. Those who are still supporting the 2012 AGB language in this area are not enhancing predictability, neither for third parties, the more important ones, nor for applicants.

Non-geographic usage should also be subject to prior authorisation or non-objection, including duration. 
Place Names are not for sale.
 
String Contention Resolution – Geographic Names:

I would indeed need additional time to review that.. I would be particularly concerned as to the costs of string contention for all the parties concerned.

I do not agree to discriminate in favour of countries that have national laws, and those that do not, for the same categories of names. ICANN should adopt global best practice. There should be no suggestion of a global DNS 'land grab'.

4. Member Proposals from the Initial Report on Scope of Protections (Proposals6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 37): 

No further comment at this stage.
 
Non-Capital City Names:

Disagree. 

(a) recent discussion on the PDP List indicates that there is no consensus as to what Specification 13 actually means. Until this is clarified I would have no brief for that text;

(b) careful review of the text of Specification 13, indicates is that it was designed to create an 'end-run' around Trademark Law, by creating a global monopoly right in the DNS for any one trademark, whereas Trademark Law does not create any such right. No!

A WT member has proposed amending the text in AGB 2.2.1.4.2 part 2 on non-capital city names by adding the blue text: 

Cities and even non-city names will last longer than brands. The main lesson from this issue is that brands and trademark owners should be severely advised not to try and hijack geographical names.

Absolutely disagree with the proposed text. It cannot be 'taken' as such.

I hope that this is helpful. I apologies for missing the most recent call for unavoidable reasons.
CW


From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>>> On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
Sent: 12 August 2019 20:33
To: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Preparation for WT5 Meeting 14 August and Final Topic Discussion

Dear Work Track 5 members,

I trust this email finds you well.

Thank you to everyone who participated in this week’s call and contributed on the mailing list to recent discussions. As documented in the meeting notes, there are several items that require your attention between now and our next call on Wednesday 14 August at 14:00 UTC. Please see the slides from Wednesday’s call (attached) for background on these issues.

By including these items in the email we are not implying that these proposals have support from the leadership team, but rather that we are attempting to assess whether any of these proposals are likely to receive consensus support as is or with some level of modification.

Please provide your views on the proposals below by tomorrow Tuesday, 13 August to help the co-leaders assess whether any might be able to receive consensus support. Please include a rationale with your response.
-
1. Translations/Languages: At this stage, there does not seem to be agreement to change the “in any language” standard for protection/restriction of Country and Territory Names and Capital City Names. If there is no agreement on a specific change, the status quo from the 2012 New gTLD Round will remain.  If you think the Work Track co-leaders have missed something and there is, indeed, a path forward that can achieve consensus, this is your final opportunity to raise it.  However, if there is agreement by the WG to change the “in any language” standard then the following two proposals will be considered.

A WT member had previously put forward a proposal on transposition of Capital City Names that was proposed as an addition to the “official and UN languages” proposal (see attached slides).  For Capital City Names, require support/non-objection letter for the transposition of accented and diacritic characters in Latin-based scripts to their equivalent ASCII root.  This would protect for example sao-tome as a DNS-Label of São Tomé alongside the IDN version of the name (xn—so-tom-3ta7c).  Additional example provided in the proposal: denhaag/den-haag would require letter of support/non-objection.

An addition, a WT member has proposed the following: In AGB 2.2.1.4.1 Treatment of Country or Territory Names, replace “in any language” with:
a. The official language of the country or territory; and
b. The de facto official language of the country or territory; and
c.  The UN languages; and
d.  The translations set out in a, b or c with the substitution of diacritical characters for ASCII characters, special characters, or spaces (eg. Austria as Österreich, or Osterreich).
For the purposes of the Applicant Guidebook, a de facto official language of a country or territory is a language that is used for official translations of the country or territory’s national laws.

For 2.2.1.4.2 part 1 on capital city names, rephrase to the following language:
An application for any string that is a representation of the capital city of any country or territory listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard in
a. The official language of the country or territory of the capital city; or
b. The de facto official language of the country or territory of the capital city; or
c.  The UN languages; or
d.  Either a, b or c with the substitution of diacritical characters for ASCII characters, special characters, or spaces (eg Den Haag as denhaag or den-haag, São Tomé as sao-tome, saotome, sãotomé, são-tomé)
Rationale:
There appears to be general agreement in the work track that the current text referring to “all languages” is unmanageable and does not provide certainty for potential applicants. The concerns flagged around previous proposals to narrowing the scope relate to uncertainty and a lack of predictability. Further, on the 17 July call the position appeared to me to be that UN languages were not necessarily relevant and excluded other relevant languages to communities. However, I appreciate that some people feel strongly about this and have included them in the proposal. To ensure that relevant languages are relied upon and acknowledging not all countries and territories have a clearly defined official language, I suggest we include de facto official languages with a clear and defined scope. Official translations of national laws are a public and verifiable source that is readily available and reflects the language(s) the people of the country or territory speak ie the language(s) are relevant.

2. Additional Categories of Terms Not Included in the 2012 AGB: Last week, there was a final call for proposals that members believe could achieve consensus support on this topic. One proposal was put forward: “Terms beyond the 2012 AGB rules with geographic meaning (e.g. adjective forms of countries, such as “Swiss”) which may be identified as such with a modicum of diligence by the prospective applicant and/or after consulting, under confidentiality terms, the Advisory Geonames Panel, shall be subject to a contact obligation with the relevant public authorities, in order to put them on notice.”

Other WT5 members suggest that this would only apply if the gTLD or string was being used in connection with the geographic meaning.

3. String Contention Resolution – Geographic Names: Last week one proposal was put forward that required additional time for WT5 members to review:
Update Applicant Guidebook, Chapter 2.2.1.4.4 with: If an application for a string representing a geographic name is in a contention set with applications for identical strings that have not been identified as geographical names, the string contention will be resolved using the string contention procedures described in Module 4.

Update Applicant Guidebook, Module 4. with:
A// In case there is contention for a string where one application intends to use the string as a non-capital city name or designated the TLD to targeting it to a geographic meaning, preference should be given to the applicant who will use the TLD for geographic purposes if the applicant for the geoTLD is based in a country where national law gives precedent to city and/or regional names.
RATIONALE: This would reflect national law e.g. in countries like Switzerland and Germany, where e.g. city names have more rights that holders of the same name.
B// If there is more than one applicant for an identical string representing a geographic name, and the applications have requisite government approvals, the applicant with the larger no of inhabitants will prevail over the smaller one. As the criteria “size” has been used in the CPE criteria, it is apparently a well-accepted criteria.
RATIONALE: This would reflect the current rule of the Applicant Guidebook capital city has priority over smaller city.

4. Member Proposals from the Initial Report on Scope of Protections (Proposals 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 37): Over the last couple of months, we have been referencing this document[docs.google.com <http://docs.google.com/>]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1rsyxCEBd6ax3Rb-5Fw1kms-5FE9n29XL1-5Flw3Yp9XQ4TeCY_edit-3Fts-3D5ce64d6d-23heading-3Dh.j7jy935ryg4k&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=ibk5NLRIVEyM8BmUAuiyFZFoV87dA6GCJADyQmNq0Zk&s=kqYJykVu4sGjVFR2cFjplDm81zbVZ0GnnkdEfx3RMbc&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1rsyxCEBd6ax3Rb-5Fw1kms-5FE9n29XL1-5Flw3Yp9XQ4TeCY_edit-3Fts-3D5ce64d6d-23heading-3Dh.j7jy935ryg4k&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=ibk5NLRIVEyM8BmUAuiyFZFoV87dA6GCJADyQmNq0Zk&s=kqYJykVu4sGjVFR2cFjplDm81zbVZ0GnnkdEfx3RMbc&e=>>, which summarizes comments on the WT5 supplemental Initial Report (full text of comments here [docs.google.com <http://docs.google.com/>]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1WKSC-5FpPBviCnbHxW171ZIp4CzuhQXRCV1NR2ruagrxs_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=ibk5NLRIVEyM8BmUAuiyFZFoV87dA6GCJADyQmNq0Zk&s=Bsx0wWBZYVTvb6bMWJTTbgnuVlPV4GRSN_CBc22YpTM&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1WKSC-5FpPBviCnbHxW171ZIp4CzuhQXRCV1NR2ruagrxs_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=ibk5NLRIVEyM8BmUAuiyFZFoV87dA6GCJADyQmNq0Zk&s=Bsx0wWBZYVTvb6bMWJTTbgnuVlPV4GRSN_CBc22YpTM&e=>>). Beginning at the bottom of page 32 of the summary document, you will find a summary of comments on some of the proposals included in the report. Elements of these proposals have been discussed in the context of revisiting the draft recommendations as well as broader discussions in the Work Track. Public comments reflect that there is a mix of perspectives in the community on the different proposals – some in favor and some opposed to each, similar to what the co-leaders have observed in WT discussions. At this stage, the co-leaders do not anticipate that re-reviewing the proposals will lead to agreement in the Work Track on specific changes to the draft recommendations.

5. Non-Capital City Names: A WT member has proposed amending the text in AGB 2.2.1.4.2 part 2 on non-capital city names by adding the blue text: “It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name. For the avoidance of doubt, where the applicant states in their application that they intend to use the TLD as a .Brand (intend to have Specification 13 in their Registry Agreement) it will be taken that the TLD will not be used primarily for purposes associated with the city name.”
Rationale:
The current AGB text states that “city names present challenges because city names may also be generic terms or brand names, and in many cases city names are not unique”. This language does not aim to change the position from the AGB 2012, but merely aims to provide greater clarity and certainty for potential applicants. At the same time, it ensures that the relevant authorities are consulted when an applicant intends to use a TLD for purposes associated with a city. If a government or local authority is concerned with an application, they are not precluded from filing an objection (as they could in 2012) or filing their own application. The current rules on resolving contention sets in AGB 2.2.1.4.4 or module 4 will not be impacted by the text.

Please remember to provide your views on these below by tomorrow Tuesday, 13 August, including a rationale with your response.

Kind regards,
Olga

[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif <https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif>]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20190821/6352dfc8/attachment-0001.html>