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

Mon Aug 26 10:54:55 UTC 2019

Dear WT 5,

Another important item:

Any letter of non-objection (or support) should have to be issued max “X month” prior to the opening of the application window. If somebody manages to get such letter already in 2019: GREAT! But they would have to get a new signature right before actually applying. The rationale here is: We had “problems” with that already in the 2012 round – where an applicant for a continent (.africa) acquired “support” very early on – then another applicant garnered much more support once the AGB was published (specifically from those who initially supported the 1st applicant): but was permanently challenged by the 1st applicant who was of the opinion that once support is expressed in written: it is established and valid in eternity.  “Outdated” support doesn’t make sense. If an applicant has “real support”: they will be able to get a fresh signature a few month before they actually apply. I don’t like the thought that maybe some “sooners and boomers” are running wild right now – making obscene “promises” to city governments (“you get 90% of the profits: just sign here”); getting support letters at a time when city-community constituent owned, funded and governed public-benefit, non-profit efforts haven’t yet been established (especially in the absence of AGBs). The entire application program spirit is about “competition” – so have a provision that the signature has to be max 3 month old at the time of application. Again: Those who garner support early on: GREAT! But “real sustained support” should provide for a new signature shortly before application submission without any problem! Or else we will have the .africa problem again.

Policy suggestion:

“The signature of any letter of non-objection or support has to be dated within X month of the application submission date”. 
Obviously “X” being subject to discussion. I say 3 month. Max 6 month.

Thanks,

Alexander

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH
Sent: Montag, 26. August 2019 08:50
To: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Remaining topics to be discussed on WT 5 next call on Wednesday

Dear all,

Following the discussion on contention resolution and the support and concerns expressed, I would like to offer the following as alternative text to AGB. This text reflects the concerns one work track member raised about community applicants. 

Also, we suggest to stick to the current contention resolution mechanisms in case there are at least two geoTLD applications with government approval for the identical string.

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:

In case there is contention for a string where one application designated the TLD for geographic purposes, 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/or the TLD is targeted to where national law gives precedent to city and/or regional names. In case a community applicant is part of the contention set, and it did not pass the CPE, the geoTLD will be granted priority in the contention set. If the community applicant passes the CPE, it will be granted priority in the contention set.

EXAMPLES:

US-based Bagel Inc. and Switzerland-based City of Lausanne apply for .lausanne -> City of Lausanne has priority.

US-based Bagel Inc. and Switzerland-based Lausanne Pharmaceuticals apply for .lausanne -> Lausanne Pharmaceuticals has priority. 

If Bagel Inc. and Lausanne Pharmaceuticals are not based in Switzerland, there is not priority granted for any. 

RATIONALE: This would reflect national law e.g. in countries like Switzerland and Germany, where e.g. city names have more rights than others. It is not about inventing new rights or laws. Also, the existing objection procedures do not really allow cities to file objections (ressources, lack of knowledge, …). If a community applicant does not pass the CPE, it is not a community with better rights per ICANNs definitions.

I’m looking forward to your thoughts on this.

Kind regards

Katrin

DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow
Akazienstrasse 28
10823 Berlin
Deutschland - Germany
Tel: +49 30 49802722
Fax: +49 30 49802727
Mobile: +49 173 2019240
ohlmer at dotzon.consulting <mailto:ohlmer at dotzon.consulting> 
www.dotzon.consulting <http://www.dotzon.consulting/> 

Besuchen Sie uns auf LinkedIn <https://de.linkedin.com/company/dotzon-gmbh> .

DOTZON GmbH
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598
Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20190826/7a06dcb5/attachment.html>