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

Justine Chew justine.chew at gmail.com
Tue Aug 27 00:48:42 UTC 2019


Dear Katrin,

I stand corrected and defer to your clarification then.

Regards,
Justine
-----


On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 20:07, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer at dotzon.com>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
>
> to be clear, I meant to agree to the following connectors:
>
>
>
> (a)
>
> OR/AND
>
> (b)
>
> OR
>
> (c)
>
>
>
> 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
> 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> *Im
> Auftrag von *Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 26. August 2019 12:57
> *An:* Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Remaining topics to be discussed on
> WT 5 next call on Wednesday - Non-Capital City Names
>
>
>
> Dear Justine,
>
>
>
> thank you for the proposed edit – I’m ok with it.
>
>
>
> 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
> 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:* Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com>
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 26. August 2019 12:42
> *An:* Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer at dotzon.com>
> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Remaining topics to be discussed on
> WT 5 next call on Wednesday - Non-Capital City Names
>
>
>
> Dear Katrin,
>
> To be fair and clearer, may I suggest further amendments marked in red.....
>
> 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. However,
> established lists can be used as objective references in the evaluation
> process.
>
> 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, and
>
> (b)(i)      The applied-for string is a city name as listed on official
> city documents, or
>
> (b)(ii)     The applied-for string is a (non-capital) city name as listed
> in http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dyb2015/Table08.xls
> .
>
>
>
> RATIONALE: This list contains capital cities and cities with 100 000 or
> more inhabitants and is thus very limited in nature. It would give
> applicants clear guidance and leaves no doubt whether their „category“ of
> TLD application is reflected in the AGB or not. If a .BRAND applies and meets
> the exemption under (a), it has no further obligation; the same goes for
> any other category of TLD applications. The rule applicable to capital
> city names remains per the preceding section 2.2.1.4.2-1.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Justine
> -----
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 17:33, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <
> ohlmer at dotzon.com> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> apparently there are positions in favour and in disagreement of the
> proposal for various reasons for the treatment of non-capital city names.
>
>
>
> Let me put forward an amendment based on the proposal which aims at
>
>    - adding greater clarity for applicants
>    - not singling out one category of TLDs (.brands) and leaving
>    undesired room for interpretation what happens with other categories of TLDs
>
>
>
> The text in blue is the addition to current rules:
>
>
>
> 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. However,
> established lists can be used as objective references in the evaluation
> process.
>
> 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, or
>
> (b)         The applied-for string is a city name as listed on official
> city documents, or
>
> (c)          The applied-for string is a city name as listed in
> http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dyb2015/Table08.xls.
>
>
>
> RATIONALE: This list contains capital cities and cities with 100 000 or
> more inhabitants and is thus very limited in nature. It would give
> applicants clear guidance and leaves no doubt whether their „category“ of
> TLD application is reflected in the AGB or not. If a .BRAND applies, it is
> covered under (a) and has no further obligations, the same goes for any
> other category of TLD applications.
>
>
>
> I’m looking forward to hearing 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
> 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> *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>
> *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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190827/a37c783a/attachment-0001.html>


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