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

[McGrady, Paul D.]

Thanks Katrin,

I’m afraid I have lost the narrative in what you are now suggesting.  The priority is based on where the applicant is located?  How would that work in cases where there is more than one place that shares the name?  Also, I still have yet to hear any rationale for why so-called geographic names would have any more priority than any other kind of name.  We, as a community, decided to give priority to community based applications in the last round.  Fine.  But why would an applicant for .cleveland who wants to use it in conjunction with the town in Tennessee (population 44,483) have priority over CLEVEAND golf company for a .cleveland branded TLD?  It is very hard to discuss tweaks to procedural aspects when no one has yet indicated a plausible policy reason to prefer these kinds of applicants over others.

So, to be clear, no support for this amended proposal granting special rights to so-called geographic applicants.  Thanks!

Best,
Paul





This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 12:50 AM
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

Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>> Im Auftrag von Olga Cavalli
Gesendet: Samstag, 24. August 2019 19:52
An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Remaining topics to be discussed on WT 5 next call on Wednesday

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/20190826/c5074a85/attachment-0001.html>