[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Remaining topics to be discussed on WT 5 next call on Wednesday - Subject 1: Additional Geographic Terms
Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Tue Aug 27 06:55:08 UTC 2019
Dear Paul, dear all
@Paul: Thanks for your Email and proposal!
However: as said, while Susan’s/Paul’s proposal would certainly mean a step ahead in providing for a more stable and predictable framework for all interested parties, it, nevertheless, is still far away from providing a middle-ground solution for non-AGB terms with geographic meaning. Adjective forms of country names are but a very small subset of terms with a geographic meaning beyond the AGB terms…
Hence, let me try to use Paul’s proposal as a basis for a wording that tries to strike a compromise between the different positions so far (my tweaks in red):
==
_____________________________________
Early Reveal Process
· Proposal. There should be an Early Reveal Process, which is an opportunity for national governments to receive early notification about particular applications so that they can take whatever steps they wish to take.
· Affected Strings. (a) Exact matches of adjectival forms of country names (as set out in the ISO 3166-1 list), in the official language(s) of the country in question, shall be subject to the Early Reveal Process described below. The adjectival forms of country names shall be found on the World Bank Country Names and Adjectives list (World Bank List<https://siteresources.worldbank.org/TRANSLATIONSERVICESEXT/Resources/CountryNamesandAdjectives.doc>). (b) Other terms with geographic meaning, as notified by GAC Members states or other UN Member states to the ICANN Organization within a deadline of 12 months following the adoption of this proposal. In such notifications the interested countries must provide the source in national law for considering the relevant term as especially protected;
· Purpose. The purpose of the Early Reveal Process is to provide early notice to relevant national governments regarding new gTLD applications for exact matches to adjectival forms of country names found on the World Bank List.
· Notification by National Governments. Interested national governments must provide relevant contact details to ICANN at least three (3) months in advance of the opening of each application window.
· Notification to National Governments. As soon as possible after, but never before, the close of each application window , but no later than 1 month after the close, ICANN Org should reveal relevant applied-for terms and applicant contact information to those national governments who provided contact information.
· Notice by ICANN. ICANN Org will provide notice of the Affected Strings to National Governments who timely submit their contact information. There is no obligation for applicants arising from this Early Reveal Process to seek a letter of consent/non-objection from the relevant public authority.
· No Legal Effect. Nothing in this section may be construed against an applicant or ICANN Org as an admission that the applicant or ICANN Org believes that the Affected String is geographical in nature, is protected under law, or that the relevant government has any particular right to take action against an application for the TLD consisting of the Affected String.
_____________________________________
==
You will see that this new wording limits the terms to be notified to those whose special protection is provided for by national law.
I hope that we may all agree on this as a minimum provision for addressing this longstanding issue…
Best regards
Jorge
Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> Im Auftrag von McGrady, Paul D.
Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. August 2019 04:19
An: Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com>; 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 - Subject 1: Additional Geographic Terms
Hi All,
I have been studying both Susan’s proposal and Jorge’s counterproposal. Unfortunately, I believe Jorge’s counterproposal is a non-starter that would result in a chilling effect upon would-be applicants and does not have enough support to reach consensus. Susan’s Early Reveal proposal (as tightened up a bit below) remains a very attractive compromise. If Susan’s proposal were modified as noted, I believe this Early Reveal Process is something we could “sell” to our constituencies to get behind when we send this to the Full WG. I hope Staff will find a way to work this into the documents we are looking at on our next call.
_____________________________________
Early Reveal Process
· Proposal. There should be an Early Reveal Process, which is an opportunity for national governments to receive early notification about particular applications so that they can take whatever steps they wish to take.
· Affected Strings. Exact matches of adjectival forms of country names (as set out in the ISO 3166-1 list), in the official language(s) of the country in question, shall be subject to the Early Reveal Process described below. The adjectival forms of country names shall be found on the World Bank Country Names and Adjectives list (World Bank List<https://siteresources.worldbank.org/TRANSLATIONSERVICESEXT/Resources/CountryNamesandAdjectives.doc>).
· Purpose. The purpose of the Early Reveal Process is to provide early notice to relevant national governments regarding new gTLD applications for exact matches to adjectival forms of country names found on the World Bank List.
· Notification by National Governments. Interested national governments must provide relevant contact details to ICANN at least three (3) months in advance of the opening of each application window.
· Notification to National Governments. As soon as possible after, but never before, the close of each application window , but no later than 1 month after the close, ICANN Org should reveal relevant applied-for terms and applicant contact information to those national governments who provided contact information.
· Notice by ICANN. ICANN Org will provide notice of the Affected Strings to National Governments who timely submit their contact information. There is no obligation for applicants arising from this Early Reveal Process to seek a letter of consent/non-objection from the relevant public authority.
· No Legal Effect. Nothing in this section may be construed against an applicant or ICANN Org as an admission that the applicant or ICANN Org believes that the Affected String is geographical in nature, is protected under law, or that the relevant government has any particular right to take action against an application for the TLD consisting of the Affected String.
_____________________________________
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<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Justine Chew
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 7:45 PM
To: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto: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 - Subject 1: Additional Geographic Terms
I support Jorge's proposal as amended and have proposed some edits to the last paragraph just to address possible confusion between the 2 notifications which the proposal touches on. The edited paragraph is replicated below in case it doesn't show up in the googledoc [ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OKYbbvUVOqLJGk0a9S5K7H9sp-7833S6y5xg6c8yqa4/edit?usp=sharing ]
Applicants for such a term will then be under an obligation to contact the relevant country. That obligation to contact must be fulfilled, at the latest, prior to reveal day. Nothing in this provision shall be construed as requiring a letter of support or non-objection from the relevant government or public authority
I believe it is reasonable for an obligation to contact to be placed on an applicant that applies for a string matching a term in the list to be populated as described in the proposal. Early notice to the right government or public authority of an application for such a string could prove useful in encouraging both sides to address any concerns that one side may have of the other's approach or reaction, as the case may be, to the application. The proposed obligation to contact in no way attracts any requirement for a letter of support or non-objection, so I see little to no downside in supporting this proposal.
Thanks,
Justine
-----
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 01:52, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli at gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli at gmail.com>> wrote:
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<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/20190827/f4cd92b1/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list