[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

Alexander Schubert alexander at schubert.berlin
Sun Aug 25 12:42:46 UTC 2019


Hi,

 

Thanks for the observation. Let’s speak “openly”:

Obviously the “brand consultants” fear that an application for a brand name that is identical to a city name could be seen as intended “use (of) the TLD  primarily for purposes associated with the city name” ……. because after all the brand name and city name are IDENTICAL.

And I think herein we find the ingenuity of the current policy version! Let me explain with an example (an example that hinges as Paris is a CAPITAL, AND already delegated, but I think it may serve as example anyways):



Paris in France has invested an INSANE amount of time (over two millennia to be exact), energy, dedication and over one hundred of generation’s hard work (after all the beautiful Paris had to be BUILT by somebody) to create one of the most iconic brands of all times: PARIS. The city branding of Paris has yielded to the number THREE of most visited cities on the planet: Only Bangkok and London receive more visitors annually (per 2018 statistics). 


Obviously this invited entities all over the world to piggyback on the fame of the city brand: which generally in most of the cases is GOOD for the city: as it makes it even MORE famous. You will only get copied if you are really special.

One example being “PARIS” (LAS VEGAS). 
See their logo here:  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Las_Vegas#/media/File:Paris_Las_Vegas_Logo.svg

Again: this is a rough example, please do not throw around with your expertise and tell me (“uhh, but their TM is PARIS LAS VEGAS” and not “PARIS”. Yeah, I know: I did an USPTO search of course).

The parent company of PARIS (Las Vegas) (CAESARS) is literally DROWNING in cash. They have US $25 BILLION in assets. If we go down to a meekly US $25k application fee: they would be almost FORCED to try trademarking “paris” (again: I know that .paris is delegated AND a capital – this is an EXAMPLE).

So IF the Las Vegas “PARIS” casino would apply for “.paris” – it would be OBVIOUS that they would use their domain names in connection with their brand; and their brand is 100% based on ( and aimed at) the city of Paris in France! The logo even contains the Tour Eiffel, and most of us will have been in the Paris casino in person: The casino sports a HUGE copy of the Tour Eiffel. 

Now in THAT case it would be literally IMPOSSIBLE to claim that the intended use is NOT primarily connected for purposes associated with the city name – because that’s all the brand DOES: Creating as much association with Paris (France) as possible! “Free-riding” doesn’t even START to describe what they do. Legal! Even partly helpful for the City of Paris as it shows the might of their brand that they have established within 200 generations – but FREE-RIDING nonetheless. 

And I am so terrible sorry: But if “.paris” wasn’t already delegated and not protected through the “capital city provisions” of the AGB: THIS would be EXACTLY a case where the brand would use the TLD for purposes associated with the CITY NAME (Paris, France). Hence it SHOULD go and get the approval of the Paris city government. And guess what their answer would be? Well. Think “Greenland”.



To also provide an opposite example (and in reality most if not ALL real life cases will be like this one):
Imagine a brand “IBM”. Imagine a city “Ibm” somewhere in the Middle East. Small city of 25,000 people – no industry, city-GDP of almost zero. In SUCH a case “International Business Machines Corporation” (IBM) clearly has NOT “targeted” the city, or is trying to piggy-back (free-ride) on its reputation. So in such case they would NOT have to acquire a letter of non-objection.

So the current wording of AGB §2.2.1.4.2.  is very much in the spirit of ICANN’S mission. If we were to add the suggested language we would create loopholes, extra rights that weren’t existing, and generally violate the spirit of the application process. The circumstance that you are a “brand” doesn’t justify the establishment of any broad-sweeping exonerations. I can imagine why the brand-lobby would LOVE this extra provision: but outside of the brand cloud nobody profits from it.

Thank you,

Alexander




 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Justine Chew
Sent: Samstag, 24. August 2019 10:44
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

 

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 <mailto: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 1st 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 <mailto:sophie.hey at valideus.com> ] 
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 1:11 PM
To: alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin> ; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> , and cc your client manager. 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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] On Behalf Of Sophie Hey
Sent: Mittwoch, 21. August 2019 14:52
To: Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org <mailto:andrea.glandon at icann.org> >; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> 
Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> , and cc your client manager. 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> 
Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto: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  <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=> GNSO Master calendar .

 

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  <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> gnso-secs at icann.org if you would like to change your status from observer to member. 

  

For additional information, you may consult the  <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/> mailing list archives and the  <https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw> main wiki page.

 

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 <mailto: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/20190825/fd8263ce/attachment-0001.html>


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