[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June

Fri Jun 8 18:36:26 UTC 2018

I think this is a practical way forward. Let's start talking about a 
manageable "size of city" category that would not require an army of 
people to maintain, for starters. I imagine population is the easiest 
way to go. But maybe there are better ideas.

Marita Moll

On 6/8/2018 12:44 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Risking to repeat myself:
>
> ·The base for our discussions is the 2012 AGB; NOT a “blank page”
>
> ·The 2012 AGB distinguished between CATEGOGIES!
>
> ·The categories “UN Regions and 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions” seem 
> relatively undisputed
>
> ·So does the treatment of capital cities: All of these do not provide 
> for a “non-geo use” provision!
>
> ·The ONLY other “category” was “cities”
>
> ·And for these there is a non-geo use provision
>
> Seemingly we now have two relatively simplistic tasks:
>
> 1.Asking ourselves what the “objective criteria” might be that would 
> equate a SIZEABLE city with the above categories! Undoubtedly a 
> Million people city community needs AT MINIMUM to be looped in when 
> some “brand” wants to hijack the name on DNS top level. Anybody who 
> tries to tell me that the “trade mark rights” of a “brand” are 
> outweighing those of 1 Million people earns my complete rejection. 
> Sorry. The question is what the criteria would be to lift a city into 
> the same category as capital cities or 3166 subnational regions.
>
> 2.OUTSIDE of regulating the city category we MIGHT discuss other 
> potential geo categories. But let’s not conflate both categories. 
> Let’s focus.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander.berlin
>
> *From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 
> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Heather 
> Forrest
> *Sent:* Freitag, 8. Juni 2018 09:16
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during 
> WT5 meeting of 6 June
>
> Dear WT5 colleagues,
>
> I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our 
> meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the 
> proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from 
> randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of 
> support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but 
> these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and 
> indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' 
> (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had 
> to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable 
> to provide context or answer questions.
>
> In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the 
> protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right 
> explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of 
> Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was 
> ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is 
> a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review 
> Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of 
> that RT), but for our purposes I’ll just highlight that protection of 
> famous trademarks through a ‘Globally Protected Marks List’ (often 
> referred to then as ‘GPML’) was rejected due to equivalent concerns as 
> those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of 
> quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection.
>
> Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to 
> determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus 
> eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature 
> of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected 
> by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the 
> five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At 
> United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 
> 2011, ICANN’s then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations 
> cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list 
> and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation 
> in new gTLD policy.^He concluded: ‘The time, commitment and resources 
> (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a 
> list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply 
> to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of 
> those 
> names.’^ (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pdf)
>
> Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative 
> geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I 
> have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally 
> support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in 
> the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground 
> of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO 
> policy decision.
>
>  Best wishes,
>
> Heather Forrest
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Terri Agnew* <terri.agnew at icann.org <mailto:terri.agnew at icann.org>>
> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM
> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect 
> chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 
> (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018
> To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org 
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org 
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>" 
> <gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>
>
> Dear all,
>
> Please find the attendanceand Adobe Connect chatof the call attached. 
> The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD 
> Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the 
> top-level) call heldonWednesday,06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC.
>
> Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ
>
> As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to 
> the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email 
> gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> if you would like to 
> change your status from observer to member.
>
> **
>
> *Mp3: 
> *https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3
>
> *Adobe Connect recording: *https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/ 
> <https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b592ccc21320b2067715609560b344fb59191929d07b3045>
>
> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO 
> Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
>
> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
>
> Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/
>
> Main wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw
>
> Thank you.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Terri
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180608/2b80e788/attachment-0001.html>