[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