<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I truly admire
Alexander's attempt to extract some minimal protection for city
names from this round of discussions and I fully support it.
This suggested wording adjustment is a long way from the hope
that the names of 1M+ cities be set aside and hopefully, that
discussion is not completely over. But I think it is time for
all parties to this discussion to find a way to modify their
positions and support such a proposal.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Marita</font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/5/2018 3:00 PM, Alexander
Schubert wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:005201d45cab$56911a20$03b34e60$@schubert.berlin">
<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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.m-2100584411624512544msolistparagraph, li.m-2100584411624512544msolistparagraph, div.m-2100584411624512544msolistparagraph
{mso-style-name:m_-2100584411624512544msolistparagraph;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext, li.m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext, div.m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext
{mso-style-name:m_-2100584411624512544msoplaintext;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:134102002;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-211257450 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1916161834;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:2030617758 67698703 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Dear
Jorge,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I
am very much in agreement with your notion! However: the way
the discussion turns out right now it seems there is a fair
chance that we do not find agreement to ANY changes to the
2012 AGBs. And in absence of agreement to change something:
the 2012 AGB specifications will remain in power!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">It’s
the typical issue of “Realpolitik”:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I
am in agreement with you that ALL city names should be
specially treated. At minimum if they exceed a certain size.
But it seems that despite of a LOT of efforts to reach
agreement – nothing happened. If we ask “less” – then
agreement might be at least established.<br>
<br>
I see these typical threat scenarios:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">An
applicant targets a (usually HUGE – because only they are
profitable) city, but wants to circumvent the requirement
for the letter of support! As per the 2012 AGB this is more
than easy: just say that you are NOT have the intent to use
the gTLD primary for purposes associated with the city name;
and you are done! Nothing ICANN could do about it. A clear
flaw in the applicant guidebook that luckily wasn’t
exploited in 2012 (for reasons that I will outline over the
weekend). My new suggestion would solve this scenario!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">An
applicant goes for a real generic term (one that is broadly
used in the DNS) – but inadvertently (circumstantially,
accidentally) targets a smallish city. If the city is small
– it is unlikely that it would ever go for its name as gTLD.
So no real harm done. And if it is HUGE: the mechanism
proposed by me would require the applicant to acquire the
letter of non-objection.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">3.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The
only real problem occurs if a BRAND applies for a closed
gTLD – which allows them to maintain that the use will NOT
be to a “significant degree for purposes associated with the
city name”. If the city is smallish: Again, they anyway
won’t go for a gTLD. So no harm done. If the city is HUGE:
only in that case we had a real problem! In that case the
city would have to entertain a formal objection via GAC. It
is my hope that such case occurs rather seldom.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">So
in most cases we would have established what we want:
preventing the circumvention of the support requirement.
Albeit: if we don’t agree to such measure – the original
2012 AGB provisions will stay in place – and nobody is
protected in ANY way. Cities are sitting ducks – and Silcon
Valley VC money will team up with Shareholder Value and raid
cities globally. And honestly: who wants their city gTLD
being guided by “U.S. Shareholder Values” instead of a local
alliance of city constituents in teamwork with their city
authority? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">In
that respect: how do you plan to achieve your goal of
protecting “all cities”? By eliminating the “non-geo use
provision” altogether?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Alexander<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, October 05, 2018 3:30 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT 5
Suggestion: a) The geo name panel determines that the
foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will
be to a significant degree for purposes associated with
the city name<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"
lang="DE-CH">Dear Alexander<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"
lang="DE-CH"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Thanks
very much for your efforts!<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">As
you will recall, I’m of the view (shared by others) that
«intended use» should be eliminated altogether from the rule
applicable to city names – for the reasons that are on
record.<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">Essentially,
whatever the use, the TLD is a unique resource, and its
delegation, even if the use is determined to be
non-geographic, means that the city identifier is delegated
away… – this is IMO a sufficient reason to have the local
authorities at the table before the applicant gets too far
into the application process – so we avoid surprises and we
also avoid the applicant investing important sums before it
is clear that all interested parties at least do not object.<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">Just
as a reminder: Swiss cities (as cities in other countries
following the civil code tradition) have rights under the
law on their names – the intended use is not a key factor in
that respect. Therefore, they need to be consulted
beforehand if we want to avoid conflicts in such situations.<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">Kind
regards<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">Jorge
<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>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="DE">Von:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="DE"> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <<a
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org</a>>
<b>Im Auftrag von </b>Alexander Schubert<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Freitag, 5. Oktober 2018 14:02<br>
<b>An:</b> <a
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT 5
Suggestion: a) The geo name panel determines that the
foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will
be to a significant degree for purposes associated with
the city name<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE-CH"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Dear
Dessalegn,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Thank
you for the question!<br>
<br>
My notion was that we utilize the foreseeable (projectable)
actual “use” by registrants to determine the association
with the city name. But maybe it avoids confusion if we
would shorten it to:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><i><span
style="color:#2E75B6">An application for a city name
will be subject to the geographic names requirements
(i.e., will require documentation of support or
non-objection from the relevant governments or public
authorities) if:</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt">2012
AGB: <b><i><span style="color:#2E75B6">a) It is clear from
</span><span style="color:red">applicant statements </span><span
style="color:#2E75B6">within the application that the </span><span
style="color:red">applicant </span><span
style="color:#2E75B6">will use the TLD </span><span
style="color:red">primarily </span><span
style="color:#2E75B6">for purposes associated with the
city name</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt">Revision:
<b><i><span style="color:#2E75B6">a) The </span><span
style="color:red">geo name panel determines </span><span
style="color:#2E75B6">that it is </span><span
style="color:red">foreseeable </span><span
style="color:#2E75B6">that </span><span
style="color:red">registrants </span><span
style="color:#2E75B6">will use the TLD </span><span
style="color:red">to a significant degree</span><span
style="color:#2E75B6"> for purposes associated with the
city name</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The
English here is slightly garbled (two time “that” – not very
eloquent) but now it is as short as the original and 2<sup>nd</sup>
level domains aren’t mentioned any more. And you are right:
It’s mainly the gTLD portion of the domains registered by
registrants that determine the “use”! <br>
<br>
Has anybody any suggestion for a better wording? Is there
some support for the notion that we should NOT rely on
“statements of the applicant” but rather have a neutral body
(geo name panel) using “common sense” to determine whether
or not a letter of support is needed; and at that on the
basis of foreseeable actual “use” by the registrants? ICANN
should (as discussed many times before) provide prospective
applicants with the opportunity to have such test conducted
many month ahead of the application period. This way in the
probably extremely rare case that an applicant would feel
treated unjust they could prepare extra information and get
extra evidence to bolster their “case”. Or they simply get
the letter of non-objection. <br>
<br>
What this “litmus test” does is essentially compare generic
use with city use. A good generic term which has at least
the CHANCE of fetching a high registration volume vs. a
smallish city: No problem! But if somebody is targeting a
city name that isn’t even identical to a generic term
(Shanghai, Chicago): then we can bust those who try to avoid
the requirement of a letter of support by the city
government. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0cm"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Alexander<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><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">
Dessalegn Yehuala [<a
href="mailto:mequanint.yehuala@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:mequanint.yehuala@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, October 05, 2018 11:51 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin"
moz-do-not-send="true">alexander@schubert.berlin</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT 5 Suggestion:
a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of
2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant
degree for purposes associated with the city name<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Alexander,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Just one small comment on the text your
proposed to be revised from the AGB 2012- "<b><i><span
style="color:#2E75B6">a) The </span><span
style="color:red">geo name panel </span><span
style="color:#2E75B6">determines that the </span><span
style="color:red">foreseeable use of 2<sup>nd</sup> level
domains by registrants </span><span
style="color:#2E75B6">will be to a </span><span
style="color:red">significant degree</span><span
style="color:#2E75B6"> for purposes associated with
the city name"</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The WT5 is mandated to deal with issues
that surround the treatment of geographic string
identifiers at the top level, wouldn't 2nd level be out of
scope?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dessalegn<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 5:49 PM
Alexander Schubert <<a
href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin"
moz-do-not-send="true">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC
1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Hi
WT 5,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Over
the weekend I will submit a longer comment about the
issue of the terminology in “recommendation 11” =
non-capital cities (pages 4 and 5 of 21 in the word
document “<i>DRAFT - WT5 Initial Report - Sections C-E
- 27.9.2018 - with comments-1</i>”)<br>
<br>
The text right now states (unchanged from the 2012
AGB) that applicants ONLY require a “letter of
non-objection” from the relevant authorities (city
government) if:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"><b><i><span
style="color:#2E75B6">a) It is clear from </span><span
style="color:red">applicant statements </span><span
style="color:#2E75B6">within the application
that the </span><span style="color:red">applicant
will use </span><span style="color:#2E75B6">the
TLD </span><span style="color:red">primarily </span><span
style="color:#2E75B6">for purposes associated
with the city name</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I
will elaborate on both: “<b><i><span style="color:red">use</span></i></b>”
(by the applicant) and “<b><i><span style="color:red">primarily</span></i></b>”.
In my mind BOTH will have to be reversed:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msolistparagraph"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span>“foreseeable
use” by the “REGISTRANTS” (rather than then “intended
or projected use by the applicant entity”)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msolistparagraph"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span>and not
limited to “primary use”– but something like
“significant use”. “Primarily” could arguably be
considered “90% or more”. “Significant” would probably
start at 20% or the like. The geo panel would need a
few guidelines here as well!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I
don’t care what or what not an applicant is dreaming
of – that needs to be determined by the geo panel! If
it is a closed brand application: obviously the case
is clear. If it is a generic term like “rock” (music)
and there is a small city of a few thousand people
named “Rock”: it’s kind of clear that the significant
majority of registrants will use the 2<sup>nd</sup>
level domains in connotation with “Rock Music” (or
other generic meanings of the term “rock” like
moon.rock). But if somebody were to apply for an open
gTLD .chicago, .shanghai or .frankfurt and would
claim that there is “no primary use associated with
the city intended” – sorry: then the applicant is
either delusional or tries to circumvent the necessity
to acquire a letter of non-objection from the relevant
city Government. This litmus test should NOT be
outsourced to the APPLICANT – but it should be a task
executed by the geo-panel. You can’t make the goat the
gardener. At least WE (ICANN) should not do so. A
brand or a real generic term based application that is
only “circumstantially” targeting a small city – that
is one thing. Somebody applying for “.shanghai” trying
to play tricks on the geo panel (and in fact on the
entire ICANN community, and the city community of
Shanghai): not cool. Doesn’t fly.<br>
<br>
In my email I will also specifically explain why this
is deemed a risk in the next round when there weren’t
any notable problems in the 2012 round. If anybody is
interested in hearing my notion on that problematic:
shout out to me – and I will elaborate further.<br>
<br>
In that light I suggest the following language (this
is so to speak the litmus test whether an applicant
needs a letter of non-objection).<br>
<br>
<b><i><span style="color:#2E75B6">An application for a
city name will be subject to the geographic
names requirements (i.e., will require
documentation of support or non-objection from
the relevant governments or public authorities)
if:</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt">2012
AGB: <b><i><span style="color:#2E75B6">a) It is
clear from applicant statements within the
application that the </span><span
style="color:red">applicant will use </span><span
style="color:#2E75B6">the TLD </span><span
style="color:red">primarily </span><span
style="color:#2E75B6">for purposes associated
with the city name</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt">Revision:
<b><i><span style="color:#2E75B6">a) The </span><span
style="color:red">geo name panel </span><span
style="color:#2E75B6">determines that the </span><span
style="color:red">foreseeable use of 2<sup>nd</sup>
level domains by registrants </span><span
style="color:#2E75B6">will be to a </span><span
style="color:red">significant degree</span><span
style="color:#2E75B6"> for purposes associated
with the city name</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">This
way a brand applicant should generally have no problem
at all (closed gTLD). And an applicant for a generic
dictionary term with broad utilization in the DNS
should also have no problems. But we would prevent
that lazy (or cheating) applicants skip the line – and
go for a city name WITHOUT looping in the city. That
would be unfair to applicants that get the city’s
support, unfair to the city itself and unfair to the
city’s constituents. <br>
<br>
Comments? It would be nice if members that support
this language would make themselves heard. I would
wish to see my recommendation prominently positioned
in the report – that will only happen if my notion
finds support.<br>
<br>
Alexander.berlin<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b>From:</b>
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:<a
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Julie Hedlund<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 04, 2018 12:43 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and
Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP
Work Track 5 - 03 October 2018<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>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext">Dear Work
Track 5 members,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext">Please see
below the action items and notes from the meeting
today (03 October). <i>These high-level notes are
designed to help WG members navigate through the
content of the call and are not a substitute for the
recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be
posted on the wiki.</i> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="color:black">Please also find attached the </span>referenced
document in PDF and Word including comments.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext">Kind
regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext">Julie<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext">Julie
Hedlund, Policy Director<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext">----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext"><b>Notes/Action
Items:</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b>Actions:</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">ACTION
ITEM: Preliminary recommendation #2: Add a footnote
explaining what "character" means<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b>Notes:</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">1.
Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">2.
Draft Initial Report Sections: Preliminary
Recommendations, Options, and Questions<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Comments about missing points -- the deliberation
sections are still to come. This is just three
sections of six.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
These are just arguments/recommendations/options at
this point.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
The question is are these the right alternatives to
put out for public comment.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Questions for community input -- asking if these make
sense and if anything is missing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Any content is subject to public comment.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Preliminary
recommendation #1:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Use of the word "certain" suggests there are other
strings we have not addressed. Suggest deleting the
word.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Can we make it clear here that we are talking about
the AGB as written rather than as applied? I don't
think we want as applied. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Preliminary
recommendation #2:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Question: We don't give any explanation for why we are
making this recommendation. Answer: The explanation
will be reflected in the deliberations in the Initial
Report. Section C is just the text of the
deliberations. There will be much more text in
Section F on the deliberations, including pros and
cons.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Looking at the last bullet point re: WT2 considering
letter-number combinations -- should this also refer
to number-number combinations? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">ACTION
ITEM: Add a footnote explaining what "character"
means.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Preliminary
recommendation #3:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Move this into the category of strings that could be
applied for with documentation on support or
non-objection. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
See also comments from Christopher Wilkinson.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
There were discussions about how many of these are
generic words as well as three-letter country codes.
There was a wider debate that was outside of scope
since it was ccNSO territory. With that in mind that
is how we got to this recommendation. There was quite
a lot of debate on this.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Do we need to clarify that we are not recommending
that any 3-character codes listed in the ISO 3166-1
standard be removed from delegation? Or that .com
should be removed from delegation?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Could have country names that could be delegated -- if
Canada wants .canada there should be a pathway for
them to getting it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Not in favor of allowing the delegation of geographic
names for non-geographic use.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Preliminary
recommendation #4:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
The problem is that we have not gotten agreement on
prior authorization and geographical use. As long as
we have no consensus we have to maintain this
restriction. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Recommendation
#5:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Question: We say we recommend continuing something in
the AGB but then we say it's a revision. Are we
saying the AGB is inconsistent with GNSO policy?
Answer: Some members would like to see whether there
is a discrepancy between the AGB and the policy -- so
saying it is consistent with the AGB, but is not
consistent with the policy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Suggest: "As noted above this recommendation is
consistent with the AGB as written [not "as drafted"]
and doesn't address the issue of translation of these
strings. However, this is a revision to GNSO
policy..."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Agree with the change above but not the order. You
had the policy first and then the AGB.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Maybe need an explanation somewhere at the beginning
of the document.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Preliminary
recommendation #6<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
The only thing that is listed are the code --- there
are no names associated with a code as "exceptionally
reserved". <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
This is a category that was in the 2012 AGB.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Example is "UK" -- The code is reserved on the ISO
site, but not the name.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Append a list for the actual report.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
When there is something reserved it doesn't mean that
it is connected the specific area where we talk about
it. As to whether there is a list -- there used to be
a list available on request from the ISO secretariat.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Preliminary
recommendation #7: No objections<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Preliminary
recommendation #8: Third bullet has same issue as
mentioned above -- No "exceptionally reserved" in the
ISO 3166.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Preliminary
recommendation #9: No objections<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Preliminary
recommendation #10: No objections<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Preliminary
recommendation #11:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Comments
from the list:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Discussion of intended use is included in the
deliberation section, including pros and cons.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Comment premature to include this preliminary
recommendation as it stands.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Consider the use of the word "primarily" as in "use
the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the
city name". Maybe it isn't quite the right word, but
we would want to avoid unintended consequences. Also,
not clear what we mean by "use". This language was in
the 2012 AGB -- not saying it was perfect, but don't
recall this ever becoming an issue with a city name.
Before we suggest changes let's look at what happened
in 2012.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
One could also say if the applicant considers any use
for the city he will have to get a letter from the
city.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
There has been a lot of back and forth on this issue
-- we need to really take a look at whether we want to
foreclose a bunch of words.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Ignores free expression rights to use words with
geographic meaning in lawful ways.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Could address by putting in a contractual requirement
that is more specific continuing to not use a TLD in a
geographic sense.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Preliminary
recommendation #12:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Need a separate recommendation dealing with the
currency codes (ISO 4217). they are very important in
the financial markets.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Don't support adding protection of the currency code.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
The sub-national place names should be open for
reservation for non-geographic uses without a letter
of support or non-objection.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">2.
ICANN63:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Released 3 subsections of the Initial Report. Only a
few comments so far.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Idea is to give people another week to submit comment,
and then we will release the full package of the
Initial Report.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Idea is that in addition to doing status updates and
outreach at ICANN63 we'll have time to potentially get
broader community input on issues, as well as to note
what might be missing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">--
Three sessions on Saturday morning with lunch at the
last session.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>