[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments

[Joe Alagna]

Hi All,


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.


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.


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:

1.      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.

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.

2.      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.

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.

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:

*MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName at LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us
<MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName at LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us>*

They don’t seem to want to change this.  Wouldn’t it be better and more
convenient for them to use something like:

*MyKidsTeachersName at LAUnified.gov <MyKidsTeachersName at LAUnified.gov>* (or
.edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name?  So…

3.      Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the
ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?


a.      Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not
engaged nor involved in this process,

b.      Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and

c.      Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven,
process, not the creation of laws or rights

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,

4.      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.

5.      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 would agree with that general
principal* since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to
rule the world.

6.      Shouldn’t we *not* 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.

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:

a.      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

b.      A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we
define

c.      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.

d.      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.

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!

Joe Alagna
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180622/9caeb315/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: worktrack5-alagna.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 147647 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180622/9caeb315/worktrack5-alagna-0001.pdf>