<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><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:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@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:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
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:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph, li.m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph, div.m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph
{mso-style-name:m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423msolistparagraph;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph, li.m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph, div.m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph
{mso-style-name:m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423gmail-msohyperlink
{mso-style-name:m_3178918718589078034gmail-m_9197942923286125423gmail-msohyperlink;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:982582515;
mso-list-template-ids:-167318358;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1328629766;
mso-list-template-ids:-1295354088;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:2030837165;
mso-list-template-ids:1484047932;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l2:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></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]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Agree w/ Greg completely. Alexander has stated his position --- but it isn’t a consensus. Certainly I disagree with it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>P<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Paul Rosenzweig<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>M: +1 (202) 329-9650<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Shatan<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 25, 2018 7:31 PM<br><b>To:</b> alexander@schubert.berlin<br><b>Cc:</b> Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Joe,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"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:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><ul type=disc><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1'><span style='font-family:"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.</span><o:p></o:p></li></ul><ul type=disc><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><span style='font-family:"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."</span><o:p></o:p></li></ul></div><div><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph style='background:white;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>· 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." </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph style='background:white;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial'><span style='font-family:"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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph style='background:white;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial'><span style='font-family:"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><span style='color:red'>11,000</span></b> names and more than <b><span style='color:red'>56,000</span></b> names. That certainly cannot be "very few."</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph style='background:white;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial'><span style='font-family:"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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial'><span style='font-family:"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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph style='background:white;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial'><span style='font-family:"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).</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph style='background:white;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial'><span style='font-family:"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. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph style='background:white;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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.) But it is good to know that Alexander thinks the 2012 rules are "horrible."</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph style='background:white;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial'><span style='font-family:"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!</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph style='background:white;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Whether 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 "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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph style='background:white;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial'><span style='font-family:"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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph style='background:white;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Once again, this proposal is supported by inaccurate and unsupported statements. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph style='background:white;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial'><span style='font-family:"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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph style='background:white;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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 "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...</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial'><span style='font-family:"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:</span><o:p></o:p></p><ul type=disc><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3'><span style='font-family:"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)</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3'><span style='font-family:"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)</span><o:p></o:p></li></ul><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph style='text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial'><span style='font-family:"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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial'><span style='font-family:"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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial'><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Greg</span><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:05 AM, Alexander Schubert <<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><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:.5in'><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79'>“……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in'><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79'> the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….”</span></i></b><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=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph><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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph><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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph style='margin-left:1.0in'><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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph style='margin-left:1.0in'><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">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME</a>)</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph style='margin-left:1.0in'><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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph><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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph><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><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'>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=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph><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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph><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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph><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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph><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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph><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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph><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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph><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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph><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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph style='margin-left:1.0in'><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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph style='margin-left:1.0in'><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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph><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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph style='margin-left:1.0in'><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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph style='margin-left:1.0in'><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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph style='margin-left:1.0in'><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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph style='margin-left:1.0in'><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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph><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><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'><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423msolistparagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!</span></b><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'>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'><br clear=all></span><o:p></o:p></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;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><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'><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Joe Alagna<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a 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>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><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=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423gmail-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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;line-height:115%'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0B5394'>2.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#0B5394'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0B5394'>There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. <br><br>These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. <br><br>The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:<br><br></span><span class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423gmail-msohyperlink><b><u><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0563C1'><a href="mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us" target="_blank"><span style='color:#0563C1'>MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us</span></a></span></u></b></span><b><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0B5394'><br></span></b><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0B5394'><br></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0B5394'>They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:<br><br></span><span class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423gmail-msohyperlink><b><u><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0563C1'><a href="mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov" target="_blank"><span style='color:#0563C1'>MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov</span></a></span></u></b></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0B5394'> (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So…</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423gmail-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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423gmail-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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423gmail-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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423gmail-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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423gmail-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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423gmail-msolistparagraph style='line-height:115%'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0B5394'>5.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#0B5394'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0B5394'>There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. <i>I would agree with that general principal</i> since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423gmail-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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423gmail-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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423gmail-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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423gmail-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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m3178918718589078034gmail-m9197942923286125423gmail-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><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'>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><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><br>_______________________________________________<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" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>