<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Marita,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Please don't jump to conclusions. I was responding to Alexander's email, but I didn't want to do "inline" responses, since I find those tendentious and tiresome unless absolutely necessary. So I needed to say what part of his email I was responding to. This was a way to show what I was responding to, but was not in any way an attempt to "discredit" the positions or Alexander. At no point did I say that any of his positions were held only by Alexander. I don't think it's appropriate when we are discussing substantive issues to make claims about how many or how few people support a given position. I will leave it to our co-chairs to deal with which positions are getting "traction" or not or, better yet, where "common ground" can be found.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I could say that your email was an attempt to discredit me and the positions I put forward, but that would be silly. I hope you will understand that your perception of my actions and intent was incorrect. Of course, there is no problem with an honest misunderstanding, and I will assume that was all it was.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Best regards,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:46 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">Hi Greg. I object to
your painting all the positions you disagree with as positions
held by Alexander. That's not just misleading, it's false. The
positions you disagree are supported by quite a few people. Throwing
them all into one box labeled "Alexander says" (you used the
name at least 10 times) is a way of discrediting ideas by
pinning them on a single individual. It is a well known
technique in political discourse when you are trying to
discredit someone.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Let's not do that
here.</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">
<br>
<div class="m_7933093344519172564moz-cite-prefix">On 6/25/2018 7:30 PM, Greg Shatan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana,
sans-serif">Joe,</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana,
sans-serif">I want to clarify some areas where Alexander's
characterizations of the group's work to date don't appear
correct. In particular:</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default">
<ul>
<li><font face="verdana, sans-serif">We have <b>not</b>
spent our time discussing practically nothing else than
trademark-related issues specifically. We <b>have</b>
spent a great deal of time discussing a more general
topic -- are place-name meanings somehow superior to ALL
other meanings? This includes trademark meanings,
surnames, nouns that are not proper nouns (BAR, SPA,
ROCK), communities (aside from the community of the
place(s) with that name. Casting this as a trademark
discussion misses the point entirely.</font></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><font face="verdana, sans-serif">It is not an accepted
concept that the 2012 AGB is the starting point of our
work (vs. the policy recommendations that preceded it;
after all, this is a "policy development process." It
is <b>certainly </b>not a base in the sense of
a "floor" changes to the 2012 AGB could go in any
direction – and in many cases, there's no agreement on
whether any particular change would be an "improvement."</font><br>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><span>·<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal"> <span> </span></span></span>Alexander
says the 2012 AGB protected "very few geo names." ISO
3166-2 protected nearly 6,000 names. Capital cities
protected roughly 250 names. The UNESCO regions and
subregions (ignored by Alexander) add another 35
names (only 2 of which are registered TLDs, contrary to
Alexander's email). That's a "protect list" of roughly<b>
6,285</b> names. I would not call that "very few." </font></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Each of these was blocked
unless the relevant governmental authorities granted a
letter of consent/non-objection (at their sole
discretion). Alexander claims "And so far nobody has
really much challenged these rules." <b><u>Nothing could
be further from the truth.</u></b> There have been
repeated challenges to continued blocking based on the
ISO-3166-2 list. To the extent capital cities have not
been challenged, I believe that has been based on the
hopeful idea of compromise to reach consensus. Subregion
names have not really been discussed one way or the other.</font></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Of course, non-capital cities
are also protected -- this adds <b>4,400-50,000</b> more
places, yielding a total between approximately <b><font color="#ff0000">11,000</font></b> names and more than
<b><font color="#ff0000">56,000</font></b> names. That
certainly cannot be "very few."</font></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">All of these issues are still
open items. So, it's incorrect to say that "The ONLY
remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names.”"
There has been a tendency by some to try and close
discussions with premature declarations of victory
(somehow it never works the other way...). This should be
seen in that context.</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">This really has nothing to do
with free speech rights of citizens -- if they want a
second level domain, they can get one. If their city
wants a TLD, they can get one. This is about blocking
names from use and giving one or more governments the
power to decide what speech will be allowed. This is the
opposite of free speech.</font></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">The idea of giving
reservation/blocking rights to governments based
on "potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city
names”" seems like a terrible blow to free speech, a form
of "prior restraint" on speech, which is particularly
disfavored. Of course, nothing will stop any city from
getting a TLD related to their name now, or in the future
(even if their first choice is not available).</font></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Since this isn't really about
"free speech rights for cities" at all, I'll skip
responding to those items, except to note that the
so-called "free speech" here is a peculiar invention: the
ability of citizens "to express themselves through a
domain name based on their city name." Since the TLD will
not exist because of this rule, the ability to use such a
domain name doesn't exist. </font></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal">Similarly,
hypotheticals that are full of false assumptions and one
sided presumptions intended to paint a David vs. Goliath
picture don't need further response, since they do not
illustrate any general principle. (As for the good
people of Tel Aviv, they would likely prefer "Tel Aviv"
in Hebrew.)</span><span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal">
</span><span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal">But
it is good to know that Alexander thinks the 2012 rules
are "horrible."</span></font></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Alexander dismisses the whole
complex issue of "intent" based on a false premise --
that because the registrars will sell the domain names,
that the registry's intent regarding the domain name
doesn't matter. First, this obviously ignores .brands,
who will not be selling domain names at all. Second,
there are many cases where TLDs are restricted as to the
type and scope of use by registrants -- not least, many
.cityname TLDs!</font></span></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><span><span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal"><span>W</span></span></span></font><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">hether brands have
rights (which of course they do) is really not an issue
here. Brands are not looking to exercise any rights here
to stop other applications, nor have brands asserted
superior privileges over other legitimate applicants.
Again, I won't pick through all of the baseless
assumptions and pejorative terms used to cobble together
an argument.... But I will say the idea that this is a </span><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">"</span><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">culture war"
doesn't hold water (and certainly is not how this has been
framed generally, if you are looking to catch up on the
work of the group.</span></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">As for the proposed
"compromise" -- it's no compromise at all, since it starts
with a false premise -- that this is a "free speech"
question for "citizens." The idea that the has been
"broad support" for the "solution" proposed is similarly
incorrect. This is certainly the solution Alexander has
repeatedly brought up, but there is no basis to say there
is broad support for it (though there is some
support). Getting rid of intent limitations without
getting rid of blocking privileges is no compromise at
all.</font></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Once again, this proposal is
supported by inaccurate and unsupported statements. </font></span></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Close to zero burden?
Applicants would have a higher burden than before -- the
requirement to bargain for the blessing of a government
even where their intended use is not associated with
that place.</font></span></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal">The
assumption that a brand that shares a name with a big
city "deliberately chose it" to "profit from the image"
of the city and that it's living off of it or
"piggybacking' on it is phrased pejoratively, but not in
any way proven. Building on this concept, we get into
invented concepts without any basis in law or facts:
that there are "</span>certain obligations" a brand has
to a city it shares a name with; that the brand is some
sort of “co-brand"; that the “real brand” is the city
brand. These are incredibly fact specific assumptions,
and even if the facts are as stated, that creates no
obligations or privileges. Furthermore this ignores the
issue of generics and other applicants with other issues.
I guess there's no pejorative fable to tell about these
applicants...</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">The so-called "current WT5
suggestion" is being "floated" largely by Alexander. In
reality, it's a lead balloon and NOT workable. I would
"float" a different "WT5 suggestion" as a compromise:<br>
</font></p>
<ul>
<li><font face="verdana, sans-serif">The status quo did not
work and it is not fine. (Perhaps it worked well for
the public authorities; there are numerous applicants
that had nightmare scenarios (e.g., TATA)</font></li>
<li><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Continue the "intent"
limitation in the category “city” and apply the same
limitation to subnational regions. (This is a big
compromise, since it would really be much more
appropriate to deal with these issues on an objection or
"after-the-fact" basis)<br>
</font></li>
</ul>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph" style="text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">That is my "reach across the
aisle" on this point. I am also passionate about the
rights of people and public benefit -- but "geo-uses"
does not have a monopoly on either point.<br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">As for looking at
"geo-names not previously protected" -- I think it would
be far more fruitful to start looking at "after-the-fact"
solutions for public authorities that feel they actually
have been harmed rather than continuing to try to use
blocking privileges as a solution.</font><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;margin:0px;font-size:small;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;margin:0px;font-size:small;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Greg</span></p>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:05 AM,
Alexander Schubert <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,78,121)">
“……the discussions seem to have only mildly
addressed the thousands of business names
around</span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,78,121)">
the world that are trademarked, that already
contain geographic names, cities and
territories….”</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;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></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">We
work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to
identify areas of improvement</span></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">In
the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been
protected, namely:</span></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:72pt"><span><span>o<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Unesco regions
(irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but
“.europe”)</span></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:72pt"><span><span>o<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;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>)</span></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:72pt"><span><span>o<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Capital cities</span></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;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></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;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></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;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></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;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></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;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></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;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></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;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></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;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></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;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></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">The
compromise needs to:</span></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:72pt"><span><span>o<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;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></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:72pt"><span><span>o<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;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></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">I
am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and
it seems there has been broad support for it:</span></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:72pt"><span><span>o<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;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></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:72pt"><span><span>o<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;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></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:72pt"><span><span>o<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;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></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:72pt"><span><span>o<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;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></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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:</span></b></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Keep
everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!</span></b></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><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)</span></b></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;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></p>
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br clear="all">
</span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="font-size:11pt;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bo<wbr>unces@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 href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>
Work Track 5 <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><wbr>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments</span></p>
<div>
<div class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">Hi
All,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">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></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph" style="margin-bottom:12pt;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">1.</span><span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">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></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph" style="margin-bottom:12pt;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">2.</span><span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">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_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msohyperlink"><b><u><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(5,99,193)"><a href="mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastNam<wbr>e@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.<wbr>ca.us</span></a></span></u></b></span><b><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"><br>
</span></b><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">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_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msohyperlink"><b><u><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(5,99,193)"><a href="mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.g<wbr>ov</span></a></span></u></b></span><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">
(or .edu) anything less than a fourth
level domain name? So…</span></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">3.</span><span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">Should
not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to
who gets the ability to apply for specific
strings related to names in the
DNS? </span></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">a.</span><span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">Since
many government, city, and territorial
entities are not engaged nor involved in
this process, </span></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">b.</span><span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">Since
both private and public entities can be
good or evil, and </span></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">c.</span><span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">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></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">4.</span><span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">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></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">5.</span><span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">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.</span></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">6.</span><span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">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></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">a.</span><span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">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></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">b.</span><span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">A
more conservative approach to our scope in
terms of the places we define</span></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">c.</span><span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">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></p>
<p class="m_7933093344519172564m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">d.</span><span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(11,83,148)"><br clear="all">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Joe
Alagna </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">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/l<wbr>istinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_7933093344519172564mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
<a class="m_7933093344519172564moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>
<a class="m_7933093344519172564moz-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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>