<div dir="ltr">Dear WT5 colleagues,<div><br></div><div>Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: "
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0px 0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:<u></u><u></u></span></b></p><p class="gmail-m_5457115079430354207MsoListParagraph" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> <span> </span></span></span></span><u></u><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!<u></u><u></u></span></b></p><p class="gmail-m_5457115079430354207MsoListParagraph" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> <span> </span></span></span></span><u></u><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)<u></u><u></u></span></b></p><p class="gmail-m_5457115079430354207MsoListParagraph" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> <span> </span></span></span></span><u></u><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!"</span></b></p>
</div><div><br></div><div>This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop.</div><div><br></div><div>Kind regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Heather Forrest</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net" target="_blank">mmoll@ca.inter.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Thanks for this summary
Alexander. I agree with most of this.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> Not totally happy
with "</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New""><span><span> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">To
reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented:
only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in
population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other
words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name
identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term
do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no
intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will
STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve
the city)." <br>
</span>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">But, as you say, there
has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special
places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out
of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but
this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about
that.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">If we can protect
cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and
a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust.</font></p><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Marita<br>
</font></p></font></span><div><div class="h5">
<div class="m_8814042535565957348moz-cite-prefix">On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander
Schubert wrote:<br>
</div>
</div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
<div class="m_8814042535565957348WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Dear
Joe,<br>
<br>
thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you
haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed.
Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking
because you also state:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f4e79">
“……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed
the thousands of business names around<u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f4e79">
the world that are trademarked, that already contain
geographic names, cities and territories….”</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Well:
For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than
discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges
(probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has
been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">We
work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas
of improvement<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">In
the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:72.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New""><span>o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Unesco
regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but
“.europe”)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:72.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New""><span>o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">ISO
3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t
granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from
the region BAR in ME - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<wbr>ISO_3166-2:ME</a>)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:72.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New""><span>o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Capital
cities<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">All
of the above require a letter if non-objection by the
responsible Government authority – independent whether or
not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far
nobody has really much challenged these rules.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The
ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” –
with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012
AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed
Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only
exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That
could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun
theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in
China (I made that up).<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">There
are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who
want to protect the free expression rights of city
populations):<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">There
are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city
names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap
with so called “brands and generic terms! <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">In
the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important
cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that
is being able to express themselves through a domain name
based on their city name – just like in the future most if
not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">So
if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem
is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which
might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would
be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they
could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war
against a potential city based non-profit that represents
the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a
financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based
application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the
good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder
how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Plus:
It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the
registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is
it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is
a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that
purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to
prevent such use!<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Some
here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of
cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a
travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the
connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster
PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right
of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on
city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a
small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of
citizens in a city?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The
entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any
OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is
steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me
included).<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">As
this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what
the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner”
– and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to
find an agreeable compromise!<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The
compromise needs to:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:72.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New""><span>o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Protect
as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing
their right of free expression by using city name based
domains!<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:72.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New""><span>o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">But
to not overprotect that category – because it would put too
many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants!<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I am
lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems
there has been broad support for it:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:72.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New""><span>o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">In
order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and
free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo
use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest
– read on).<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:72.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New""><span>o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">So
if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a
new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they
would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the
citizens free speech and free expression rights which are
very important!<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:72.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New""><span>o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">To
reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff”
implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement
(e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be
replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special
relevance has a name identical to a generic term –
applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the
city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The
Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be
approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city).<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:72.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New""><span>o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Such
cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would
have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000
have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once
we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be
defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying!<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The
outcome would be that brands and generic term based
applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while
in the same time the free speech rights and rights of
expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be
preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very
rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big
city” name (because they want to profit from the image the
citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time)
– then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the
city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will
still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a
“co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are
living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But
honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k
people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use
clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could
somebody run a brand name database against a big city
database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a
“brand”! <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">So
if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is
being floated:<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Keep
everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">In
the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain
requirement into the same status as subnational regions or
capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">And
indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as
important as the average capital or a subnational region!
Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The
disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the
isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many
countries (I am not singling any particular country out) –
it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN
could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both
sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am
guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am
passionate when it comes to rights of people and public
benefit!). <br>
Now it is time to form the compromise.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><br clear="all">
</span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">A
simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it
workable?<br>
<br>
Anyone in?<br>
<br>
Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for
that specific category we can look at geo name categories
previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE
category – and should not be conflated with the city name
category!<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Alexander<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
[<a class="m_8814042535565957348moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-<wbr>bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf
Of </b>Joe Alagna<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="m_8814042535565957348moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a> Work Track 5
<a class="m_8814042535565957348moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank"><gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.<wbr>org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">Hi
All,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">I
would like to pose several questions and
considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of
my comments have already been discussed since I have
been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have
perused the ongoing document you are developing within
the limits of my time. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">These
questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of
contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily
advocating a position. 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:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348gmail-msolistparagraph" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">1.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#0b5394">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">Some
members are advocating to reserve city and territory
names as rights or even as owned by the cities or
territories. 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. 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. Strings like this are highly
important as parts of business names, identifying the
locations of service areas for example. These include
names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and
Telegraph. I use that second example to show how
long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems
unacknowledged so far in our discussions. 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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348gmail-msolistparagraph" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">2.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#0b5394">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">There
is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding
geographic indicators in new strings, government
entities or private entities. 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. <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. Yet they prefer not to use them. <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. A very typical teacher or administrative
email address looks like this:<br>
<br>
</span><span class="m_8814042535565957348gmail-msohyperlink"><b><u><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0563c1"><a href="mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563c1">MyKidTeachersFirstName.<wbr>LastName@<wbr>LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.<wbr>ca.us</span></a></span></u></b></span><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394"><br>
</span></b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">They
don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be
better and more convenient for them to use something
like:<br>
<br>
</span><span class="m_8814042535565957348gmail-msohyperlink"><b><u><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0563c1"><a href="mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563c1">MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.<wbr>gov</span></a></span></u></b></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">
(or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain
name? So…<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348gmail-msolistparagraph" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">3.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#0b5394">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">Should
not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the
ability to apply for specific strings related to names
in the DNS? <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348gmail-msolistparagraph" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">a.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#0b5394">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">Since
many government, city, and territorial entities are not
engaged nor involved in this process, <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348gmail-msolistparagraph" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">b.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#0b5394">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">Since
both private and public entities can be good or evil,
and <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348gmail-msolistparagraph" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">c.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#0b5394">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">Since
ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven,
process, not the creation of laws or rights <br>
<br>
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to
either type of entity? 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, <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348gmail-msolistparagraph" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">4.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#0b5394">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">Shouldn’t
we be careful not to try to confer preferences or
“rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try
that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not
have that power.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348gmail-msolistparagraph" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">5.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#0b5394">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">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. <i>I would agree with that general principal</i>
since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t
try to rule the world.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348gmail-msolistparagraph" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">6.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#0b5394">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">Shouldn’t
we <u>not</u> assume that every government entity
around the world cares about what we are doing here. In
fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much
as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. <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:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348gmail-msolistparagraph" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">a.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#0b5394">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">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 <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348gmail-msolistparagraph" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">b.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#0b5394">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">A
more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the
places we define<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348gmail-msolistparagraph" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">c.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#0b5394">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">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. 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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_8814042535565957348gmail-msolistparagraph" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">d.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#0b5394">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">There
should be no limits on how many applications may be
filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate,
or government). 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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0b5394">Finally,
thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your
discussion and participation. I believe this discussion
is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are
making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to
contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank
you!<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#0b5394"><br clear="all">
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#1f497d">Joe
Alagna </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_8814042535565957348mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><span class=""><pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
<a class="m_8814042535565957348moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>
<a class="m_8814042535565957348moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a></pre>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>