[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Pre and post delegation support requirement for city names

[Greg Shatan]

These are not nonsense or free-rider provisions, at least not in the
abstract.

As for the rights of cities to go against brands they don’t like, we can’t
invent non-existent rights . We can look at existing rights and how they
could be adapted to the online world. But we need to be conservative.

Greg



On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 9:38 AM Alexander Schubert
<alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:

> Thanks also from me for the PDF.
>
> It reminded me of smth that we haven’t scrutinized enough here, and it is
> the kind of hen and chicken problem we run into so often while conducting
> the PDP:
>
>
>
> If somebody applies for a city gTLD (or any geo TLD that requires
> Government support) – and is so honest to label the application as such:
> they are required to acquire the requisite “letter of non-objection”.
>
> In THAT case the city Government will have an eye on the management of the
> city gTLD namespace and might at any point in the future withdraw their
> “non-objection”: for example if they feel the namespace is managed poorly
> or even damages the city-brand reputation!
>
> So per now we have actually authorized the “relevant Government authority”
> with conducting TWO overseer mandates:
>
> One pre-application, and one post-application!
>
> This obviously raises a question that has been mentioned in side-arguments
> during the current PDP, but which I think deserves much more attention:
> In the 2012 AGB we granted free access to (non-capital) city name based
> gTLDs IF the applicant did NOT “intended” geo name use. I am supporting
> those who want to delete this “nonsense” free-rider paragraph. And here is
> why:
>
> Those who jumped through the hoops and acquired a “letter of
> non-objection” are under the constant threat to lose their gTLD operation
> agreement if only the city finds any “problems”. But now imagine these
> scenarios:
>
> ·        Not so honest applicants applying for city names – NOT
> indicating any geo name use – and still make big bucks as neither
> registrars nor registrants care for “designations” at all, and consequently
> entities from the target city register domains en-masse.
>
> ·        Or: A “brand” applies for their brand name (equaling a city name
> – e.g. Oakland) – and upon the liquidation (or sale) of the brand the gTLD
> is repurposed and opened up for registration to everybody (maybe through
> the CentralNic model as it is practiced with .us.com, .de.com, etc. – so
> the registry could remain “closed”).
>
> In both cases the city Government (or rather the constituencies and
> citizens of the city, represented by their elected officials) would
> obviously be potentially negatively impacted – but has no authority to act.
> Why? The “post delegation” authority of the city should be irrelevant from
> the “intended use”! In other words: If a brand uses the name of a sizeable
> city – and damages the city’s reputation. That city should be able to react!
>
>
>
> So either we grant city Governments a “GENERAL post application
> intervention” authorization (see example cases above) – or we simply delete
> the “no letter of non-objection required if no geo usage intended”
> provision altogether! ESPECIALLY if we adopt the population size cutoff: So
> if a brand needs to apply for a gTLD string that is identical to a sizeable
> city: simply get the approval – and be subject to their scrutiny in the
> future: like everybody else, too! But no free-riding anymore, please. If
> the city is smallish: no support letter required anyways. If the city is
> sizeable – the name deserves protection at all times: pre AND post
> delegation. BTW: If the population size cutoff were adopted it is extremely
> unlikely that generic term based applications would be impacted: the
> overlap between “sizeable city” and “generic term” is extremely small.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> *Sent:* Mittwoch, 16. Mai 2018 10:28
> *To:* emily.barabas at icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 16
> May 2018 at 14:00 UTC
>
>
>
> Dear Emily
>
>
>
> Thanks for the useful slides.
>
>
>
> One question/suggestion which comes to my mind: there is a geographic
> names review as part of the initial evaluation, i.e. when the applicant
> already has made significant investments. What if, in addition to that
> review, the geographic names panel would also be available on an advisory
> basis during the application preparation phase? It could advise on
> hard/unclear cases and also on names with geographic significance not
> covered by the specific geonames categories/lists included in the AGB 2012,
> as well as help in identifying relevant public authorities (with help from
> ICANN Org and GAC Members if needed)…
>
>
>
> Probably this would avoid a lot of headaches and unexpected issues when
> the application is already further down the road, and would allow for early
> contact with the relevant public authorities…
>
>
>
> Hope this helps
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Emily Barabas
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 16. Mai 2018 08:23
> *An:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Betreff:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 16 May
> 2018 at 14:00 UTC
>
>
>
> Dear Work Track 5 Members,
>
>
>
> Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Wednesday 16 May at
> 14:00 UTC.
>
>
>
>    1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates
>    2. Administration/Capturing and Managing Input
>    3. Geographic Names Process Review
>    4. AOB
>
>
>
> Slides for the call are attached for reference.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Emily
>
>
>
>
>
> *Emily Barabas *| Senior Policy Specialist
>
> *ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>
> Email: emily.barabas at icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180516/e16df909/attachment.html>