[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Remaining topics to be discussed on WT 5 next call on Wednesday

Olga Cavalli olgacavalli at gmail.com
Sat Aug 24 17:51:49 UTC 2019


Dear WT5 colleagues,

I trust this email finds you well.

As agreed in our last call, there would be a revision of 4 different
issues, as a last chance to find a possible agreement in new text:

Subject 1: Final Discussion: Additional Geographic Terms
Subject 2: TOPIC CLOSURE: Changes to String Contention Resolution
Subject 3: Final Discussion: Non-Capital City Names
Subject4 : TOPIC CLOSURE: Proposals to Increase or Decrease the Scope of
Protections for Geographic Names

This email puts together all of them, please take a look, share your
comments edits in this email list or in the shared document when available.

We noted there are already comments in the email list on Subject 3. Please
note that these and other suggestions will be summarised together with new
input that these issues will receive during the next days.

Many thanks for your active involvement.

Kind regards,

Annebeth, Javier, Martin, and Olga





Subject 1: Final Discussion: Additional Geographic Terms



The WT is considering a proposal for additional geographic terms, which was
discussed in detail on both email and most recently on the 21 August 2019
meeting. As an action item, it was agreed that discussion should continue
on list until *28 August 2019*, where it is anticipated that a near-final
proposal (if achievable) can be considered by the group on the call taking
place that same day. To facilitate that discussion, the latest iteration of
the proposal has been copied into a Google document here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OKYbbvUVOqLJGk0a9S5K7H9sp-7833S6y5xg6c8yqa4/edit?usp=sharing.
Staff has attempted to integrate some of the questions, concerns, and
suggested improvements into that document for your consideration. Please
either suggest edits directly in the Google doc or reply to this email
thread dedicated to this subject.



In this case, unless consensus can be reached on this proposal, the
co-leads do not envision that there will be any additional terms receiving
geographic protections.





*Subject 2: TOPIC CLOSURE: Changes to String Contention Resolution*



As an action item on the 21 August 2019 meeting, the WT agreed to continue
discussion on possible changes to string contention resolution. To date,
there has only been a single proposal put forth (see below), which the
co-leads believe has received adequate discussion time, but has received
considerable opposition both on list and during WT meetings. Discussion on
this topic will be allowed to continue on list until *28 August 2019. *Unless
it becomes apparent to the co-leads that a consensus position is possible
by that date, this topic will be considered closed.



For avoidance of doubt, unless consensus is reached on this proposal, the
2012 Applicant Guidebook provisions will remain in place for string
contention resolution.


*Proposal:*



*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.*





*Subject 3: Final Discussion: Non-Capital City Names*



The WT is considering [what appears to be a non-substantive – feel free to
delete if you’re uncomfortable with this statement] proposal for a
clarifying text change to section 2.2.1.4.2 part 2 in the Applicant
Guidebook, on non-capital city names. This proposal has been discussed on
both email and most recently on the 21 August 2019 meeting. As an action
item, it was agreed that discussion should continue on list until *28
August 2019*, where it is anticipated that a near-final proposal (if
achievable) can be considered by the group on the call taking place that
same day. To facilitate that discussion, the latest iteration of the
proposal has been copied into a Google document here, which includes
Sophie’s latest proposal received after the 21 Aug meeting:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ZSuKTRm2y3mTg9FBZHv50ljP-dWE9N_okz9gcl2-2U/edit?usp=sharing.
Please either suggest edits directly in the Google doc or reply to this
email thread dedicated to this subject.



For avoidance of doubt, unless consensus is reached on this proposal, the
2012 Applicant Guidebook provisions will remain in place for non-capital
city names.





*Subject4 : TOPIC CLOSURE: Proposals to Increase or Decrease the Scope of
Protections for Geographic Names*



As an action item on the 21 August 2019 meeting, the WT agreed to continue
discussion on several proposals that either increase or decrease the scope
of protections for Geographic Names. The relevant proposals are 8, 9, 10,
37, 6, and 7 and the fully detailed public comment can be found in the
public comment review document here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WKSC_pPBviCnbHxW171ZIp4CzuhQXRCV1NR2ruagrxs/edit?usp=sharing.
You can also review the public comment summary document beginning on page
32 here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rsyxCEBd6ax3Rb_w1kms_E9n29XL1_lw3Yp9XQ4TeCY/edit?usp=sharing.
The co-leads believe that the proposals have received adequate discussion
time and significantly, each appear to have received widely divergent
opinions, which leads us to believe that consensus will be difficult to
achieve. However, discussion on this topic will be allowed to continue on
list until *28 August 2019. *Unless it becomes apparent to the co-leads
that a consensus position is possible for any of these proposals by that
date, this topic will be considered closed.



For your convenience, the proposals are reproduced below:


*Proposals:*

*Increase in protections*



Proposal 8: If an applicant applies for a string that is confusingly
similar to a geographic term that requires a letter of government support
or non-objection, the applicant should be required to obtain a letter of
government support/non-objection. As an example, a common misspelling of a
geographic name would be considered confusingly similar.



Proposal 9: At the end of the registry contract period, a government entity
has the option of becoming engaged and can add provisions to the contract
that specifies conditions rather than there being an assumption that the
contract will be renewed.



Proposal 10: A TLD associated with geography should be incorporated within
the jurisdiction of the relevant government and subject to local law.



Proposal 37: Require that an applicant demonstrates that it has researched
whether the applied-for string has a geographic meaning and performed any
outreach deemed necessary by the applicant prior to submitting the
application. The proposal would be in addition to the existing measures
related to the Geographic Names Panel.



*Decrease in protections*



Proposal 6: Once a gTLD is delegated with an intended use that is
geographic in nature, all other variations and translations of this term
are unconditionally available for application by any entity or person.
Objection procedures could potentially still apply.



Proposal 7: An applicant for a string with geographic meaning must provide
notice to each relevant government or public authority that the applicant
is applying for the string. The applicant is not required to obtain a
letter of support on non-objection. This proposal relies on curative
mechanisms to protect geographic names in contrast with
support/non-objection requirements that are preventative in nature. Each
government or public authority has a defined opportunity to object based on
standards to be established. The right to object expires after a set period
of time. Objections are filed through one of the existing objection
processes or a variation on an existing process. A set of standards would
need to be established to determine what constitutes a relevant government
or public authority. This proposal could apply to all or some of the
categories of geographic names included in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook.





 Kind regards,

Annebeth, Javier, Martin, and Olga
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20190824/8e8ff25f/attachment.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list