<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="color:#0b5394">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span>Hi All,<br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span>Although, because of time obligations, I have not
commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.<span> </span><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span>I would like to pose several questions and
considerations.<span> </span>Please accept my
apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been
unable to join the telephonic discussions.<span>
</span>I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits
of my time. <br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span>These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of
contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position.<span> </span>The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own
observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span><span>1.<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>Some members are
advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by
the cities or territories.<span> </span>I’ve always
understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for
geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions
seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the
world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and
territories.<span> </span>You can look at any database
of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of
existing trademarks that contain geographic strings.<span> </span>Strings like this are highly important as
parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example.<span> </span>These include names like Swiss Air and
American Telephone and Telegraph.<span> </span>I use
that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is.<span> </span>This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our
discussions.<span> </span>I fear that we are ignoring
a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise
to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type
strings.<br>
<br>
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private,
so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type
of entity applying for a string.<br>
<br>
<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span><span>2.<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>There is a theme of
debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new
strings, government entities or private entities.<span> </span>My experience, at least in the United States
is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and
for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using
what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.<span> </span><br>
<br>
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu)
domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public
company does not have.<span> </span>Yet they prefer
not to use them.<span> </span><br>
<br>
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the
United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the
.edu or .us space.<span> </span>A very typical
teacher or administrative email address looks like this:<br>
<br>
</span><span class="gmail-MsoHyperlink" style="color:rgb(5,99,193);text-decoration:underline"><b><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%"><a href="mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us" style="color:rgb(5,99,193);text-decoration:underline">MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us</a></span></b></span><b><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%"><br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%"><br>
</span><span>They don’t seem to want to change this.<span> </span>Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for
them to use something like:<br>
<br>
</span><span class="gmail-MsoHyperlink" style="color:rgb(5,99,193);text-decoration:underline"><b><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%"><a href="mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov" style="color:rgb(5,99,193);text-decoration:underline">MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov</a></span></b></span><span> (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name?<span> </span>So…<br>
<br>
<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span><span>3.<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>Should not ICANN
remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific
strings related to names in the DNS?<span> </span><span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span><span>a.<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>Since many
government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this
process, <span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span><span>b.<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>Since both private
and public entities can be good or evil, and <span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span><span>c.<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>Since ICANN has a charter
of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights<span> </span><br>
<br>
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity?<span> </span>In fact, some in this discussion seem to be
suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only
be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not
ICANN, therefore, <span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span><span>4.<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>Shouldn’t we be
careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all?<span> </span>In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that?<span> </span>It seems that we do not, and probably should
not have that power.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span><span>5.<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>There has been
discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities,
or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is
relevant.<span> </span><i>I would agree with that general principal</i> since it respects local
laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span><span>6.<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>Shouldn’t we <u>not</u>
assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are
doing here.<span> </span>In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do.<span>
</span>If they did care, they would be involved.<span> </span><br>
<br>
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how
geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also
care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant
in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four
suggestions:<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span><span>a.<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>A general
preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist <span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span><span>b.<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>A more conservative
approach to our scope in terms of the places we define<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span><span>c.<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period,
at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming
engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than
an assumption of renewal for applicants.<span>
</span>This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or
ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time,
to become involved if they then care to.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span><span>d.<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>There should be no
limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity
(private, corporate, or government).<span> </span>If
we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we
limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span>Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides,
for your discussion and participation.<span> </span>I
believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are
making in terms of your time.<span> </span>I only
wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have.<span> </span>Thank you!<span></span></span></p>
<br clear="all"></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><p><font size="2"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Joe Alagna</span></font><font size="2"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><span><font size="2"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></font><span><font size="2"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></font></span><font size="2"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></font></span></span></font><font size="2"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><span><font size="2"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><span><span><font size="2"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><br></span></font></span></span></span></font></span></span></font></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>