[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Remaining topics to be discussed on WT 5 next call on Wednesday - Subject 1: Additional Geographic Terms

Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH ohlmer at dotzon.com
Wed Aug 28 13:30:06 UTC 2019


Dear All,

I agree with Justine, given that the current proposal says „no rights arise over strings exactly matching terms in the list“. What shall be the harm?

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> Im Auftrag von Justine Chew
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. August 2019 08:32
An: 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

And what is wrong with allowing an expanded list purely for the purpose of putting a relevant government or public authority on notice? The proposal on the cards now clearly stipulates that no rights arise over strings exactly matching terms in the list.

If there is a suggestion to refine the interpretation or explanation of "source in national law" then let's consider that option.

I suspect any chilling effect suggested by Paul might be overcomed by implementing automatic notification at ICANN's system end in respect of all applications for any of the Affected Strings. Although applicants may be themselves willing to contact the relevant government or public authority in the spirit of goodwill.

Justine
-----


On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 12:43, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
I agree with Paul McGrady and others that the creation of an open-ended list of "other terms with geographic meaning" limited only by governments' creativity in finding a "source in national law" is a non-starter.  This could lead to thousands of strings with some tenuous connection to geography being submitted.  The discussion of Geographical Indications in the RPM WG will be hijacked, as countries will submit their entire register of GIs to this list.  I suppose the US could submit every term with a geographic meaning that's on the USPTO trademark register, but that's just another problem.  Other countries where GIs are protected on the TM register could do the same thing.  Indeed, as drafted, non-GI trademarks that have a geographic meaning could be put on this potentially endless list (e.g., LUZERNE for diary products).

This doesn't even get into the details of attempting to implement this proposal, including defining some very slippery terms, creating review and challenge mechanisms, etc.  In lieu of that, I'll simply ask whether the set of potential "terms with geographic meaning" is the "over eleven million placenames" found at https://www.geonames.org/?

Best regards,

Greg

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:32 PM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Susan
Taking on board the comments you mention I‘ve left it to the applicants to decide, see:
„Said obligation to put on notice the relevant country may be performed in an automatized fashion by ICANN Org, if the applicant so wishes.“
Kindly
Jorge



________________________________

Von: Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>>
Datum: 27. August 2019 um 20:15:01 MESZ
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>, PMcGrady at taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com> <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>>, ohlmer at dotzon.com<mailto:ohlmer at dotzon.com> <ohlmer at dotzon.com<mailto:ohlmer at dotzon.com>>, gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto: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 Jorge, having been tied-up in meetings I haven’t had time to work out all of the differences between your latest text, inserted in the Google Doc, and that proposed by Paul, but I do note that you have reverted back to the notification being by the applicant rather than ICANN.  What was your reason for this?  There seemed to be a lot of support for taking the notification out of the hands of the applicant, so as to remove any later disagreement over whether such notification was sent and received.

Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy
Valideus

D: +44 (0) 20 7421 8255
T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8299
E: susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com> <mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>>
www.valideus.com<http://www.valideus.com><http://www.valideus.com/>



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 Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
Sent: 27 August 2019 13:32
To: PMcGrady at taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>; ohlmer at dotzon.com<mailto:ohlmer at dotzon.com>; 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

Dear all

I’ve been looking in depth into the details of the different comments and proposals so far and have included in the Google Doc a new version that tries to streamline all inputs into one consistent wording…

Here it is for your convenience:

==

Suggested text considering all inputs (Susan, Paul, Katrin, Justine) so far (Jorge August 27, at 14:00):

Proposal.
Applications of strings regarding terms beyond the 2012 AGB rules with geographic meaning shall be subject to an obligation of the applicant to contact the relevant public authorities, in order to put them on notice.

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. 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; The list of notified terms shall be made publicly available by ICANN Org.

Contact details of interested countries.
Interested countries must provide relevant contact details to ICANN at least three (3) months in advance of the opening of each application window.

Obligation to contact interested countries.
Applicants for such a term will then be under an obligation to contact the relevant country. Said obligation to contact must be fulfilled, at the latest, in the period between applications closing and reveal day, but an applicant may choose to notify earlier than this.
Said obligation to put on notice the relevant country may be performed in an automatized fashion by ICANN Org, if the applicant so wishes.

No further legal effect.
There is no further obligation whatsoever arising from this provision and it may not be construed as requiring a letter of non-objection from the relevant public authority. 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.


==
@Paul, while it is true that Susan’s proposal received more support two calls ago, I feel that the level of support to a more comprehensive text (which came from across the community and is present in many inputs from the public comment period) should not be diminished…

This should be especially so, if we consider that the latest wordings which I’ve been suggesting have conceded and factored in many of the questions which were presented during the last calls (e.g. eliminating the reference to “public policy”; stating as clearly as possible that this is just and only a contact obligation; that no rights are being created or recognized; providing for an automated notification option, etc.).

I’m trying to be as specific and flexible as possible…

I hope that you and other colleagues with concerns may make constructive and specific proposals on this text, without losing the wider objective out of sight, which is to create a framework that handles non-AGB applications related to geographic terms in a more successful fashion than the 2012 AGB…


Best regards

Jorge



Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>>> Im Auftrag von McGrady, Paul D.
Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. August 2019 14:02
An: Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer at dotzon.com<mailto:ohlmer at dotzon.com><mailto:ohlmer at dotzon.com<mailto:ohlmer at dotzon.com>>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto: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

Thanks Katrin,

Of course my refinement of Susan’s proposal is not meant to be in addition to the proposal found at the link (as is clear from my statement when I posted it).  As I stated, Jorge’s proposal putting a notice burden on the applicant and opening up the compilation of a list for all sorts of geo terms is a non-starter.  Jorge’s proposal had very little support on our call when it was held at an hour more conducive to full participation.  Susan’s proposal had significant support on that call, subject to the need for a few tweaks which I think I have put forward.  My refinement to Susan’s proposal is a significant concession on top of all of the compromises already baked into the 2012 Applicant Guidebook.  As we all know, there is no basis in law requiring any special treatment for geographic terms, so the special treatments found in the 2012 AGB are significant concessions, as is the refinement to Susan’s Early Reveal proposal below.

If we are at a point where those pushing for Jorge’s proposal are insisting on all or nothing, I’m afraid it will be time declare non-consensus and simply revert to the AGB 2012 as written (which is itself a significant concession since, as noted above, the AGB contains many concessions on this point not required under any law).  That is the point of compromise – no one side gets everything they want.

Hopefully, serious consideration will be given to what I posted below.  Attempting to tack it on as a redundancy to Jorge’s proposal is not a helpful response, and time is short.

Best,
Paul



From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>>> On Behalf Of Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 6:04 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto: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

Dear All,

we assume that the basis for the proposal remains the text as published by staff at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OKYbbvUVOqLJGk0a9S5K7H9sp-7833S6y5xg6c8yqa4/edit and that the proposal below serves as an addition and does not substitute the notification from applicants to governments. In that case we are generally ok  – and added a clarification in green.

Kind regards
Katrin


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 and other terms with geographic meaning, as notified by GAC Members states or other UN Member states to the ICANN Organization.

·         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<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:justine.chew at gmail.com><mailto:justine.chew at gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew at gmail.com>>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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.



________________________________
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<http://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.
_______________________________________________
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/20190828/d5d38afc/attachment-0001.html>


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