[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Post call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 5 – Geographic Names at the Top Level - call | Wednesday, 21 August 2019 at 05:00 UTC

Sat Aug 24 07:43:30 UTC 2019

The "loophole" which Alexander brings up aside and focusing squarely on
Sophie's amended proposed text ....

I still don't see the usefulness in adding the amended proposed text. It
may be only me perhaps, but I am concerned by implications to the notion of
excluding a key conditional requirement on applicants for strings matching
non-capital city names *by mere inference*. Simply put, is it really that
difficult for an applicant to declare outright in their application that
they intend to operate the TLD exclusively as a dotBrand *and that they
will not use the TLD  primarily for purposes associated with the city name*
?

Opened to further enlightenment on this point,
Justine
-----

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 07:24, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
wrote:

> Dear Sophie,
>
>
>
> You are asking me:
>
> *“I am unclear on what additional rights or **loopholes **would arise
> under this **proposed language**…..”*
>
>
>
>
> First let me please remark that the 2012 official AGB language was:
>
> *“2.2.1.4.2 Geographic Names Requiring Government Support:*
>
>
> *………..An application for a city name will be subject to the*
>
> *geographic names requirements ……… if:*
>
> *(a) It is clear from applicant statements within the*
>
> *application that the applicant will use the TLD*
>
> *primarily** for purposes associated with the city*
>
> *name…”*
>
>
>
> *PRIMARELY! *
>
> So if you apply for a “real brand” (one that is existing since a long
> time, is well known and in broad use in commerce) and declare the “intended
> use” to be associated WITH SAID BRAND – then it is BY DEFINITION NOT
> “primarily for purposes associated with the city name”. YOU AS APPLICANT
> HAVE THAT UNDER CONTROL! You need to make a STATEMENT in your application:
> Do you wish to associate the use of the gTLD with your BRAND NAME – or with
> the CITY NAME? It’s written right there in 2.2.1.4.2 – there is no room for
> any interpretation. YOU have to tell the geo panel what YOU intend. So do
> it and all will be fine. The geo-panel is the judge; they are not biased!
> They listen to YOUR statement!
>
>
>
> But let me answering your question and explaining the loophole that your
> language would (in my mind) create:
>
> We have to stop assuming that the next round(s) will be as disciplined as
> the 2012 round. By start of the next round a DECADE has gone by since the 1
> st round: and all kinds of shady fortune hunters will try to make “quick
> bucks” in coming rounds. So here an example how the loophole that your
> language would (accidentally) create could be exploited (everybody please
> remember: we are talking about non-capital city names here):
>
>
>
> ·         Some (shady) applicants for non-capital city names will want to
> avoid acquiring the requisite letter of non-objection from the relevant
> city Government (e.g. to avoid participation in a public call for tender by
> said city: and ALL cities will have public tenders in 2021/2022 if there is
> any potential applicant)
>
> ·         The (shady) applicant applies for a quick and cheap trade mark
> (e.g. in the Benelux; where expedited TMs are REGISTERED within DAYS – the
> opposition period starts THEREAFTER; but the TM is valid already! The TMCH
> is accepting it, too!) Thus ALL requirements for a Spec 13 designation are
> met.
>
> ·         Then the shady applicant EXPLOITS your loophole: Because per
> your policy addition their application (if Spec 13 is invoked) would be
> EXCEMPTED from any scrutiny regarding the “intends to use the gTLD for
> purposes primarily associated with the city name.”  (note that “primarily”
> is part of 2.2.1.4.2 but not reflected in your language).
>
>
>
> How would the shady applicant profit from it: why going this route? Just
> ONE potential scam scheme:
> Apply for a couple of large metropolises as (pseudo) “Spec 13 brand”. Do
> that for cities where you know the city has a public call for tender (an
> indicator that there are applicants in wait; “public tenders” are by
> definition “public”! Easy to spot!). Wait for the reveal day: and offer the
> city applicant to withdraw your (Spec 13) application if he “pays up”: or
> else threaten to block their application indefinitely (how long
> “indefinitely” might be: ask the community applicants for .hotel: THEY WON
> CPE – and are still blocked! In 2019!). Most city applicants would rather
> quickly shell out US$200k instead waiting 5 or more years. If the
> application floor goes down to US $50,000 – and we maintain 80% refund:
> your “cost” (as scammer) would be just a mere US 10k per pop! So scammers
> “risk” US $10k to likely earn US $200k? Hey: We are INVITING these scams to
> happen! And I thought about it just for a few minutes.
>
>
> I say:
>
> ·         Generally Spec 13 should be GENERALLY INELIGIBLE for strings
> that match large cities (e.g. larger 250,000 people – the exact number
> subject to discussion)
>
> ·         Exception: the “brand” manages to get a letter of non-objection
> from the city government (permission for blocking the string to the general
> public!)
>
>
>
> I want to be on record that city-communities are in the cross hairs of
> profiteers – that they are very vulnerable because the circumstance that a
> certain city name is being applied for is (via public tender) very visible.
> And any and all loopholes that circumvent the necessity to acquire “letters
> of non-objection” are unnecessarily dangerous. City applicants are “sitting
> ducks”.
>
>
>
> Please excuse my fixation on “exploits” – but we already had exploits in
> the 2012 round: e.g. a number of applicants applied for the same string
> TWICE – one time as community priority application, one time as standard
> application! A gross LOOPHOLE nobody thought about (and one that completely
> went against the policy spirit).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sophie Hey [mailto:sophie.hey at valideus.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, August 23, 2019 1:11 PM
> *To:* alexander at schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Post call | New gTLD Subsequent
> Procedures Sub Team – Track 5 – Geographic Names at the Top Level - call |
> Wednesday, 21 August 2019 at 05:00 UTC
>
>
>
> Dear Alexander,
>
>
>
> I am proposing this language to improve the clarity of the provision for
> all potential applicants. I agree that “purposes associated with the city
> name” does not include dotBrand applicants. However, in the public comment
> period, the United States Government, NCSG, and part of the ALAC, all
> expressed concerns about the wording in this provision. I am not looking to
> re-open the intended use debate, rather highlight that there were concerns
> raised in the public comment period about the wording of this provision.
>
>
>
> I am unclear on what additional rights or loopholes would arise under this
> proposed language, which only identifies one clear purpose that would not
> be “a purpose associated with the city name”.
>
>
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Sophie
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Sophie Hey*Policy Advisor
> *Valideus*
> D: +44 (0) 20 7421 8252
> E: sophie.hey at valideus.com
>
>
>
> *Com Laude, Demys and Valideus August Bank Holiday Opening Hours*
>
>
>
> The UK offices of Com Laude Group will be closed for a UK public holiday
> on Monday 26 August 2019, reopening on Tuesday 27 August 2019. If you have
> an urgent matter for the Valideus team, please email
> jeff.neuman at valideus.com, and cc your client manager.
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Alexander Schubert
> *Sent:* 22 August 2019 15:05
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Post call | New gTLD Subsequent
> Procedures Sub Team – Track 5 – Geographic Names at the Top Level - call |
> Wednesday, 21 August 2019 at 05:00 UTC
>
>
>
> Dear Sophie,
>
> The question arises: If a “real brand” is qualifying for Spec 13 on its
> own merits – why having to add such “general clause”? Could you provide an
> example of “harm” for “brands” if such clause would not exist? What do you
> try to “fix”? Each “fix” that creates an “automatic right” will be source
> for a “loophole”.
>
> Long story short:
> Your suggestion makes sense for real brands – but real brands qualify
> anyway by virtue of intended use – so your rule will only serve as loophole
> for tricksters; which we did ONLY not see in 2012 because nobody foresaw
> the success of city gTLDs (or rather: just a few where believers).
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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 *Sophie Hey
> *Sent:* Mittwoch, 21. August 2019 14:52
> *To:* Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>;
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Cc:* gnso-secs at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Post call | New gTLD Subsequent
> Procedures Sub Team – Track 5 – Geographic Names at the Top Level - call |
> Wednesday, 21 August 2019 at 05:00 UTC
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Following the discussion on non-capital city names on this call and the
> support and concerns expressed on additional language, I would like to
> suggest the following as alternative text to AGB 2.2.1.4.2 part 2. I have
> also included the entirety of part 2 for greater clarity. The blue text is
> the proposed addition, the black is what is currently in the AGB:
>
>
>
> 2. An application for a city name, where the applicant declares that it
> intends to use the gTLD for purposes associated with the city name.
>
> City names present challenges because city names may also be generic terms
> or brand names, and in many cases city names are not unique. Unlike other
> types of geographic names, there are no established lists that can be used
> as objective references in the evaluation process. Thus, city names are not
> universally protected. However, the process does provide a means for cities
> and applicants to work together where desired.
>
> An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names
> requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection
> from the relevant governments or public authorities) if:
>
>
>
> (a)   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, if an applicant declares in their
> application that they will operate the TLD as a dotBrand, then this is not
> a use of the TLD for “purposes associated with the city name”;
>
> (b)   The applied-for string is a city name as listed on official city
> documents.
>
>
>
> The previous blue language read as follows: 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.
>
>
>
> Looking forward to hearing everyone’s thoughts on this.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
>
> *Sophie Hey*Policy Advisor
> *Valideus*
> D: +44 (0) 20 7421 8252
> E: sophie.hey at valideus.com
>
>
>
> *Com Laude, Demys and Valideus August Bank Holiday Opening Hours*
>
>
>
> The UK offices of Com Laude Group will be closed for a UK public holiday
> on Monday 26 August 2019, reopening on Tuesday 27 August 2019. If you have
> an urgent matter for the Valideus team, please email
> jeff.neuman at valideus.com, and cc your client manager.
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Andrea Glandon
> *Sent:* 21 August 2019 07:28
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Cc:* gnso-secs at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Post call | New gTLD Subsequent
> Procedures Sub Team – Track 5 – Geographic Names at the Top Level - call |
> Wednesday, 21 August 2019 at 05:00 UTC
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 5
> – Geographic Names at the Top Level - call held on Wednesday, 21 August
> 2019 at 14:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page
> <https://community.icann.org/x/faujBg>(attendance included) and the GNSO
> Master calendar
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=lhHF0M6JaIYeLBnC3Q9bqu2sZWPv1nLAgZnVMGCKrHU&s=Tzxf9LTtBSdrMY8pcfoDex94Y46jW4hgjQNgWe51VqU&e=>
> .
>
>
>
> These include:
>
>    - Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance
>    list)
>    - Audio recording
>    - Zoom chat archive
>    - Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript)
>    - Transcript
>
>
>
> As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the
> recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email
> gnso-secs at icann.org if you would like to change your status from observer
> to member.
>
>
>
> For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives
> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/>and the main wiki page
> <https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw>.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Andrea
> ------------------------------
>
> The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the
> intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way
> by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this
> message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the
> email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete
> it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility
> for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this
> email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability
> for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of
> the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes
> Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales
> with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell
> Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in
> England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at
> 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a
> company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its
> registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF
> Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered
> at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan)
> Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at
> Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further
> information see www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com>
> ------------------------------
>
> The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the
> intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way
> by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this
> message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the
> email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete
> it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility
> for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this
> email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability
> for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of
> the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes
> Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales
> with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell
> Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in
> England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at
> 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a
> company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its
> registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF
> Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered
> at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan)
> Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at
> Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further
> information see www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20190824/45fadf50/attachment-0001.html>