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

Marita Moll mmoll at ca.inter.net
Thu Aug 29 15:18:10 UTC 2019


Agree with Justine. No harm here -- only an attempt to show good faith 
on the part of ICANN towards the communities and cities around the world.

Marita

On 8/28/2019 2:32 AM, Justine Chew wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190829/537b0809/attachment-0001.html>


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