<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Actually, Alexander had
proposed a range -- from 100,000 to 500,000. And there is also
the alternative of a pro-rated size depending on the state. Both
of these can exist concurrently. So if it looked like I was
agreeing with an absolute number, sorry. That's not really what
was intended. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">As Jorge says, we do
still have to define city. I don't know if his suggestion would
be workable. In Italy, every small town with a Cathedral is a
city. So we might have to go with a more encompassing
definition.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Marita</font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/25/2018 6:15 PM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:AB0B03BAA04C59408DBA5398AFB3B5200D516FEE@SB00108A.adb.intra.admin.ch">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Vorformatiert Zchn";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.gmail-msolistparagraph, li.gmail-msolistparagraph, div.gmail-msolistparagraph
{mso-style-name:gmail-msolistparagraph;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.gmail-msohyperlink
{mso-style-name:gmail-msohyperlink;}
span.HTMLVorformatiertZchn
{mso-style-name:"HTML Vorformatiert Zchn";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Vorformatiert";
font-family:"Consolas",serif;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage25
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">An alternative is to defer to national laws and
policies defining what is a “city” for each country. Such an
information should be simple to assemble in the age of big
data…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">Best<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">Jorge
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="DE">Von:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="DE"> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>Im Auftrag von </b>Carlos Raul Gutierrez<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Montag, 25. Juni 2018 16:51<br>
<b>An:</b> Marita Moll <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net"><mmoll@ca.inter.net></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I agree with Marita that the
absolute number limit proposed by Alexander Schubert does
not help! Hope there is an alternative<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">---<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New"">Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt">El 2018-06-25 08:47, Marita
Moll escribió:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #1010FF
1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
5.0pt;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm">
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Thanks for this summary
Alexander. I agree with most of this.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Not totally happy with "</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt">
</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)." </span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Marita<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">On
6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #1010FF
1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
5.0pt;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"><em><b><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</span></b></em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"><em><b><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></b></em><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt">
</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</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">In
the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected,
namely:</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:72.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New"">o</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Unesco
regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but
".europe")</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:72.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New"">o</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</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" moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME</a>)</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:72.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New"">o</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Capital
cities</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt">
</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.</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt">
</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).</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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):</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt">
</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!
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt">
</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!
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt">
</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?
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt">
</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!</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt">
</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?</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt">
</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).</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt">
</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!</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The
compromise needs to:</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:72.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New"">o</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</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!</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:72.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New"">o</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</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!</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt">
</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:</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:72.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New"">o</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</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).</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:72.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New"">o</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</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!</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:72.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New"">o</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</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).</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:72.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New"">o</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</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!</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt">
</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"! </span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><strong><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:</span></strong><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><strong><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Keep
everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!</span></strong><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><strong><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)</span></strong><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-18.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><strong><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!</span></strong><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><br
clear="all">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><strong><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></strong><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [<a
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<strong><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">On
Behalf Of </span></strong>Joe Alagna<br>
<strong><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Sent:</span></strong>
Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM<br>
<strong><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">To:</span></strong>
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a> Work Track 5 <a
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">
<gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org></a><br>
<strong><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Subject:</span></strong>
Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0B5394">Hi
All,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0B5394"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0B5394"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0B5394"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;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:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="gmail-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.</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-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><strong><u><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0563C1"><a
href="mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:#0563C1">MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us</span></a></span></u></strong><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0B5394"><br>
</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0B5394"><br>
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><strong><u><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0563C1"><a
href="mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:#0563C1">MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov</span></a></span></u></strong><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...</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-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?
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-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,
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-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
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-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, </span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-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.</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-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. <em><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I
would agree with that general principal</span></em>
since it respects local laws, makes sense, and
doesn't try to rule the world.</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-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:</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-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 </span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-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</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-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.</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-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.</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;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!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="color:#0B5394"><br clear="all">
</span><o:p></o:p></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><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" moz-do-not-send="true">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New"">_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>