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

Thu Aug 29 15:58:49 UTC 2019

I agree with Paul’s analysis.

Of course, it doesn’t matter why the Heidelberg.de case was circulated.
What’s important is what it shows us.

Paul, we may want to send this case to our mutual former colleague, Brian
Heidelberg.  If we are still allowed to call him that on an ICANN email
list...

Greg

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 11:48 AM McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Katrin.  I took a look at the first one.  It appeared to be a case
> involving a .de ccTLD, not a gTLD and a German national.  Whether or not a
> country restricts speech within its own borders really is its own
> business.  What folks are proposing is that local laws should be able to
> restrict speech globally (i.e. on gTLDs).  Are there any such laws?  If so,
> please send their citations.  If not, let’s just admit that there is no
> legal basis for these proposed restrictions and move on.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 29, 2019 10:32 AM
> *To:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <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
>
>
>
> Dear Paul,
>
>
>
> the list was an answer to your question „Can you please send to the list a
> citation for the national laws in Germany and Switzerland that you mention
> that provide that cities have priority rights to their names in the domain
> name space?“.
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Katrin
>
>
>
>
>
> DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow
> Akazienstrasse 28
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutschland+-+Germany?entry=gmail&source=g>
> 10823 Berlin
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutschland+-+Germany?entry=gmail&source=g>
> Deutschland - Germany
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutschland+-+Germany?entry=gmail&source=g>
> Tel: +49 30 49802722
> Fax: +49 30 49802727
> Mobile: +49 173 2019240
> ohlmer at dotzon.consulting
> www.dotzon.consulting
>
> Besuchen Sie uns auf LinkedIn
> <https://de.linkedin.com/company/dotzon-gmbh>.
>
>
> DOTZON GmbH
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598
> Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Akazienstrasse+28,+10823+Berlin?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
>
>
> *Von:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 28. August 2019 18:44
> *An:* Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer at dotzon.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld
> Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Betreff:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Remaining topics to be discussed on
> WT 5 next call on Wednesday
>
>
>
> Thanks Katrin.  Your first example, Heidelberg.de, is a great example of
> why we don’t need these protections in the AGB.  In that case, the Chamber
> brought a lawsuit prohibiting use of Heidelberg.de and was successful.
> That was a German case against a German person over a German domain name.
> Makes sense – Germans are free to govern themselves even if their decisions
> are not decisions that we would make here in the States.
>
>
>
> What doesn’t make sense is reading into the case that the German speech
> restriction would automatically apply globally to every applicant
> everywhere.  If a U.S. applicant applies for .hanover to sell pretzels in
> the U.S., has a U.S. backend provider, and contracts with ICANN, a
> California corporation that, for the most part, has California law in its
> contracts, it is not clear why Hanover, DE should be granted in a say in
> the matter.  Even so, if Hanover, DE thinks the applicant or ICANN is
> violating a German law, they can sue in Germany and see if (1) the German
> court will find jurisdiction; and (2) whether or not a US court will
> effectuate the German court’s decision and order the U.S. applicant to
> withdraw the application.  But, baking in a worldwide pre-injunction
> against applications for .hanover which injunction can’t be lifted without
> a letter of consent is the height of government overreach.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 28, 2019 8:37 AM
> *To:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <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
>
>
>
> Dear Paul,
>
>
>
> I’ve been in meetings and can only respond now.
>
>
>
> There are a couple of very good examples in Germany regarding national
> legislation. Unfortunatley they are all in German:
>
>
>
> http://www.kanzlei-doehmer.de/webdoc19.htm#heidelberg.de -> you have to
> search for „heidelberg“ and will find the respective text
>
>
> http://www.rechtsanwalt-stapf.de/rechtsanwalt-mannheim/namensrecht-domainrecht.pdf
> -> rulings by the highest german court
>
>
> https://www.junit.de/beitraege/174-musterstadt-sagt-nein-das-namensrecht-von-kommunen
> -> naming rights of cities and regions
>
>
> https://www.telemedicus.info/urteile/Marken-und-Namensrecht/Domainnamen/570-BGH-Az-I-ZR-20103-solingen.info.html
> -> one of the most well-known rulings about solingen.info and naming
> rights
>
>
> http://www.markenmagazin.de/bgh-solingen-info-unberechtigte-namensanmassung-an-domain-urteil-vom-21-09-2006-i-zr-20103/
>
>
>
> I hope this helps!
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Katrin
>
>
>
> DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow
> Akazienstrasse 28
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutschland+-+Germany?entry=gmail&source=g>
> 10823 Berlin
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutschland+-+Germany?entry=gmail&source=g>
> Deutschland - Germany
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutschland+-+Germany?entry=gmail&source=g>
> Tel: +49 30 49802722
> Fax: +49 30 49802727
> Mobile: +49 173 2019240
> ohlmer at dotzon.consulting
> www.dotzon.consulting
>
> Besuchen Sie uns auf LinkedIn
> <https://de.linkedin.com/company/dotzon-gmbh>.
>
>
> DOTZON GmbH
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598
> Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Akazienstrasse+28,+10823+Berlin?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
>
>
> *Von:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 27. August 2019 15:52
> *An:* Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer at dotzon.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld
> Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Betreff:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Remaining topics to be discussed on
> WT 5 next call on Wednesday
>
>
>
> Thanks Katrin.
>
>
>
> Can you please send to the list a citation for the national laws in
> Germany and Switzerland that you mention that provide that cities have
> priority rights to their names in the domain name space?  Will be
> fascinating to see how those national laws are meant to affect a California
> Public Benefit Corporation’s right to enter into private contracts under
> California law.  I don’t know of any legal theory that could effectuate
> such a restriction other than, I suppose, telling ICANN they can’t offer
> services in those countries unless they comply.  Thanks much.  Looking
> forward to receiving the citations.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer at dotzon.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 27, 2019 1:46 AM
> *To:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Subject:* AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Remaining topics to be discussed on
> WT 5 next call on Wednesday
>
>
>
> Hi Paul,
>
>
>
> thanks for raising questions to our proposal.
>
>
>
> The rationale is that ICANN has to respect national laws when defining the
> AGB. Some countries have laws which govern that cities have priority rights
> to their names, e.g. in Germany and Switzerland. The fact, that those laws
> exist and have to be respected, were not incorporated in the AGB in 2012
> and led to several issues with geoTLD applications in the previous
> application round.
>
>
>
> Therefore our proposal aims at more clarity and transparency for
> applicants in two ways:
>
>
>
>    1. If an applicant is located in a country where such national law
>    exist, he has to respect it.
>    2. If an applicant applies for a TLD which targets a country where
>    such national law exist, he has to respect it.
>
>
>
> I hope my explanation helped to understand that we do not propose a
> priority for geoTLDs.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Katrin
>
>
>
>
>
> DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow
> Akazienstrasse 28
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutschland+-+Germany?entry=gmail&source=g>
> 10823 Berlin
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutschland+-+Germany?entry=gmail&source=g>
> Deutschland - Germany
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutschland+-+Germany?entry=gmail&source=g>
> Tel: +49 30 49802722
> Fax: +49 30 49802727
> Mobile: +49 173 2019240
> ohlmer at dotzon.consulting
> www.dotzon.consulting
>
> Besuchen Sie uns auf LinkedIn
> <https://de.linkedin.com/company/dotzon-gmbh>.
>
>
> DOTZON GmbH
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598
> Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Akazienstrasse+28,+10823+Berlin?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
>
>
> *Von:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 26. August 2019 23:06
> *An:* Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer at dotzon.com>; Icann Gnso Newgtld
> Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Betreff:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Remaining topics to be discussed on
> WT 5 next call on Wednesday
>
>
>
> Thanks Katrin,
>
>
>
> I’m afraid I have lost the narrative in what you are now suggesting.  The
> priority is based on where the applicant is located?  How would that work
> in cases where there is more than one place that shares the name?  Also, I
> still have yet to hear any rationale for why so-called geographic names
> would have any more priority than any other kind of name.  We, as a
> community, decided to give priority to community based applications in the
> last round.  Fine.  But why would an applicant for .cleveland who wants to
> use it in conjunction with the town in Tennessee (population 44,483) have
> priority over CLEVEAND golf company for a .cleveland branded TLD?  It is
> very hard to discuss tweaks to procedural aspects when no one has yet
> indicated a plausible policy reason to prefer these kinds of applicants
> over others.
>
>
>
> So, to be clear, no support for this amended proposal granting special
> rights to so-called geographic applicants.  Thanks!
>
>
>
> 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> *On
> Behalf Of *Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH
> *Sent:* Monday, August 26, 2019 12:50 AM
> *To:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <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
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Following the discussion on contention resolution and the support and
> concerns expressed, I would like to offer the following as alternative text
> to AGB. This text reflects the concerns one work track member raised about
> community applicants.
>
>
>
> Also, we suggest to stick to the current contention resolution mechanisms
> in case there are at least two geoTLD applications with government approval
> for the identical string.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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:
>
> In case there is contention for a string where one application designated
> the TLD for geographic purposes, 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/or the TLD is targeted to where national
> law gives precedent to city and/or regional names. In case a community
> applicant is part of the contention set, and it did not pass the CPE, the
> geoTLD will be granted priority in the contention set. If the community
> applicant passes the CPE, it will be granted priority in the contention set.
>
>
>
> EXAMPLES:
>
> US-based Bagel Inc. and Switzerland-based City of Lausanne apply for
> .lausanne -> City of Lausanne has priority.
>
> US-based Bagel Inc. and Switzerland-based Lausanne Pharmaceuticals apply
> for .lausanne -> Lausanne Pharmaceuticals has priority.
>
> If Bagel Inc. and Lausanne Pharmaceuticals are not based in Switzerland,
> there is not priority granted for any.
>
>
>
> RATIONALE: This would reflect national law e.g. in countries like
> Switzerland and Germany, where e.g. city names have more rights than
> others. It is not about inventing new rights or laws. Also, the existing
> objection procedures do not really allow cities to file objections
> (ressources, lack of knowledge, …). If a community applicant does not pass
> the CPE, it is not a community with better rights per ICANNs definitions.
>
>
>
> I’m looking forward to your thoughts on this.
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Katrin
>
>
>
>
>
> DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow
> Akazienstrasse 28
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutschland+-+Germany?entry=gmail&source=g>
> 10823 Berlin
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutschland+-+Germany?entry=gmail&source=g>
> Deutschland - Germany
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Akazienstrasse+28+%0D%0A10823+Berlin+%0D%0ADeutschland+-+Germany?entry=gmail&source=g>
> Tel: +49 30 49802722
> Fax: +49 30 49802727
> Mobile: +49 173 2019240
> ohlmer at dotzon.consulting
> www.dotzon.consulting
>
> Besuchen Sie uns auf LinkedIn
> <https://de.linkedin.com/company/dotzon-gmbh>.
>
>
> DOTZON GmbH
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598
> Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Akazienstrasse+28,+10823+Berlin?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> *Im
> Auftrag von *Olga Cavalli
> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 24. August 2019 19:52
> *An:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Betreff:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Remaining topics to be discussed on WT 5
> next call on Wednesday
>
>
>
> Dear WT5 colleagues,
>
>
>
> I trust this email finds you well.
>
>
>
> As agreed in our last call, there would be a revision of 4 different
> issues, as a last chance to find a possible agreement in new text:
>
>
>
> Subject 1: Final Discussion: Additional Geographic Terms
>
> Subject 2: TOPIC CLOSURE: Changes to String Contention Resolution
>
> Subject 3: Final Discussion: Non-Capital City Names
>
> Subject4 : TOPIC CLOSURE: Proposals to Increase or Decrease the Scope of
> Protections for Geographic Names
>
>
>
> This email puts together all of them, please take a look, share your
> comments edits in this email list or in the shared document when available.
>
>
>
> We noted there are already comments in the email list on Subject 3. Please
> note that these and other suggestions will be summarised together with new
> input that these issues will receive during the next days.
>
>
>
> Many thanks for your active involvement.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Annebeth, Javier, Martin, and Olga
>
>
>
>
>
> Subject 1: Final Discussion: Additional Geographic Terms
>
>
>
> The WT is considering a proposal for additional geographic terms, which
> was discussed in detail on both email and most recently on the 21 August
> 2019 meeting. As an action item, it was agreed that discussion should
> continue on list until *28 August 2019*, where it is anticipated that a
> near-final proposal (if achievable) can be considered by the group on the
> call taking place that same day. To facilitate that discussion, the latest
> iteration of the proposal has been copied into a Google document here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OKYbbvUVOqLJGk0a9S5K7H9sp-7833S6y5xg6c8yqa4/edit?usp=sharing.
> Staff has attempted to integrate some of the questions, concerns, and
> suggested improvements into that document for your consideration. Please
> either suggest edits directly in the Google doc or reply to this email
> thread dedicated to this subject.
>
>
>
> In this case, unless consensus can be reached on this proposal, the
> co-leads do not envision that there will be any additional terms receiving
> geographic protections.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Subject 2: TOPIC CLOSURE: Changes to String Contention Resolution*
>
>
>
> As an action item on the 21 August 2019 meeting, the WT agreed to continue
> discussion on possible changes to string contention resolution. To date,
> there has only been a single proposal put forth (see below), which the
> co-leads believe has received adequate discussion time, but has received
> considerable opposition both on list and during WT meetings. Discussion on
> this topic will be allowed to continue on list until *28 August 2019. *Unless
> it becomes apparent to the co-leads that a consensus position is possible
> by that date, this topic will be considered closed.
>
>
>
> For avoidance of doubt, unless consensus is reached on this proposal, the
> 2012 Applicant Guidebook provisions will remain in place for string
> contention resolution.
>
>
>
> *Proposal:*
>
>
>
> *Update Applicant Guidebook, Chapter 2.2.1.4.4 with: *
>
> If an application for a string representing a geographic name is in a
> contention set with applications for identical strings that have not been
> identified as geographical names, the string contention will be resolved
> using the string contention procedures described in Module 4.
>
>
>
> *Update Applicant Guidebook, Module 4. with: *
>
> A// In case there is contention for a string where one application intends
> to use the string as a non-capital city name or designated the TLD to
> targeting it to a geographic meaning, preference should be given to the
> applicant who will use the TLD for geographic purposes if the applicant for
> the geoTLD is based in a country where national law gives precedent to city
> and/or regional names.
>
>
>
> *RATIONALE: This would reflect national law e.g. in countries like
> Switzerland and Germany, where e.g. city names have more rights that
> holders of the same name. *
>
>
>
> B// If there is more than one applicant for an identical string
> representing a geographic name, and the applications have requisite
> government approvals, the applicant with the larger no of inhabitants will
> prevail over the smaller one. As the criteria “size” has been used in the
> CPE criteria, it is apparently a well-accepted criteria.
>
>
>
> *RATIONALE: This would reflect the current rule of the Applicant Guidebook
> capital city has priority over smaller city.*
>
>
>
>
>
> *Subject 3: Final Discussion: Non-Capital City Names*
>
>
>
> The WT is considering [what appears to be a non-substantive – feel free
> to delete if you’re uncomfortable with this statement] proposal for a
> clarifying text change to section 2.2.1.4.2 part 2 in the Applicant
> Guidebook, on non-capital city names. This proposal has been discussed on
> both email and most recently on the 21 August 2019 meeting. As an action
> item, it was agreed that discussion should continue on list until *28
> August 2019*, where it is anticipated that a near-final proposal (if
> achievable) can be considered by the group on the call taking place that
> same day. To facilitate that discussion, the latest iteration of the
> proposal has been copied into a Google document here, which includes
> Sophie’s latest proposal received after the 21 Aug meeting:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ZSuKTRm2y3mTg9FBZHv50ljP-dWE9N_okz9gcl2-2U/edit?usp=sharing.
> Please either suggest edits directly in the Google doc or reply to this
> email thread dedicated to this subject.
>
>
>
> For avoidance of doubt, unless consensus is reached on this proposal, the
> 2012 Applicant Guidebook provisions will remain in place for non-capital
> city names.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Subject4 : TOPIC CLOSURE: Proposals to Increase or Decrease the Scope of
> Protections for Geographic Names*
>
>
>
> As an action item on the 21 August 2019 meeting, the WT agreed to continue
> discussion on several proposals that either increase or decrease the scope
> of protections for Geographic Names. The relevant proposals are 8, 9, 10,
> 37, 6, and 7 and the fully detailed public comment can be found in the
> public comment review document here:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WKSC_pPBviCnbHxW171ZIp4CzuhQXRCV1NR2ruagrxs/edit?usp=sharing.
> You can also review the public comment summary document beginning on page
> 32 here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rsyxCEBd6ax3Rb_w1kms_E9n29XL1_lw3Yp9XQ4TeCY/edit?usp=sharing.
> The co-leads believe that the proposals have received adequate discussion
> time and significantly, each appear to have received widely divergent
> opinions, which leads us to believe that consensus will be difficult to
> achieve. However, discussion on this topic will be allowed to continue on
> list until *28 August 2019. *Unless it becomes apparent to the co-leads
> that a consensus position is possible for any of these proposals by that
> date, this topic will be considered closed.
>
>
>
> For your convenience, the proposals are reproduced below:
>
>
>
> *Proposals:*
>
> *Increase in protections*
>
>
>
> Proposal 8: If an applicant applies for a string that is confusingly
> similar to a geographic term that requires a letter of government support
> or non-objection, the applicant should be required to obtain a letter of
> government support/non-objection. As an example, a common misspelling of a
> geographic name would be considered confusingly similar.
>
>
>
> Proposal 9: At the end of the registry contract period, a government
> entity has the option of becoming engaged and can add provisions to the
> contract that specifies conditions rather than there being an assumption
> that the contract will be renewed.
>
>
>
> Proposal 10: A TLD associated with geography should be incorporated within
> the jurisdiction of the relevant government and subject to local law.
>
>
>
> Proposal 37: Require that an applicant demonstrates that it has researched
> whether the applied-for string has a geographic meaning and performed any
> outreach deemed necessary by the applicant prior to submitting the
> application. The proposal would be in addition to the existing measures
> related to the Geographic Names Panel.
>
>
>
> *Decrease in protections*
>
>
>
> Proposal 6: Once a gTLD is delegated with an intended use that is
> geographic in nature, all other variations and translations of this term
> are unconditionally available for application by any entity or person.
> Objection procedures could potentially still apply.
>
>
>
> Proposal 7: An applicant for a string with geographic meaning must provide
> notice to each relevant government or public authority that the applicant
> is applying for the string. The applicant is not required to obtain a
> letter of support on non-objection. This proposal relies on curative
> mechanisms to protect geographic names in contrast with
> support/non-objection requirements that are preventative in nature. Each
> government or public authority has a defined opportunity to object based on
> standards to be established. The right to object expires after a set period
> of time. Objections are filed through one of the existing objection
> processes or a variation on an existing process. A set of standards would
> need to be established to determine what constitutes a relevant government
> or public authority. This proposal could apply to all or some of the
> categories of geographic names included in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Kind regards,
>
> Annebeth, Javier, Martin, and Olga
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20190829/e4dc34b4/attachment-0001.html>