[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

[Arasteh]

Me too fully agree and share view points of Jorge
We must work together and fully understand each other ‘s position and  find a mutually agreed workable resolution of the batter .
GAC has always did it’s best and now expecting similar behavior from GNSO 
Regards
Kavouss 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 7 Oct 2018, at 18:49, Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone at ebu.ch> wrote:
> 
> I TOTALLY AGREE AND SHARE WHAT JORGE SAID.
> "intended use" is meaningless, as we concluded after many rounds of discussion.
> Giacomo
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> Sent: samedi 22 septembre 2018 05:05
> To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters
> 
> Dear all
> 
> "Intended use" is very far from representing a compromise proposal.
> 
> We have had the debate on this idea for more than a year, so it is of little use and efficiency for us repeating arguments that are abundantly reflected on the record, and, as I recall, in the working document.
> 
> Let's see what the public consultation brings on these questions.
> 
> best regards
> 
> Jorge
> 
> ps: I'll be on leave some days, so excuse me if I don't react for a while.
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Datum: 21. September 2018 um 23:18:39 MESZ
> An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters
> 
> Hello,
> 
> In follow-up to our WT5 meeting discussion earlier this week, I wanted to provide a more precise proposal for an amendment to policy requiring a govt. letter of support / non-objection from applicants of TLDs that are geo-words other than capital city names.
> 
> The goal here is to target the harm to be prevented from a misrepresentation that the TLD speaks for the local authority when it isn't the case, while also allowing for other legitimate uses of a geo-word TLD to go forward.  So it is an attempt to balance two legitimate interests in a way that can find room for preventing the bad acts, but allowing lawful TLD uses to go forward.  It is a proposal for compromise to find middle ground.
> 
> In short: applicants who intend to represent a connection to the authority of a non-capital city or other geo-category from the guidebook will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection as a means of verifying that connection.
> 
> However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the non-capital city or the other geo-categories from the guidebook, protections will be enhanced by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geo-word.
> 
> Putting aside capital cities, we will leave them as the policy currently exists, we would ONLY require the govt. letter for the other geo-words IF the use represents a connection to the authority.  So that would apply to non-capital city names and sub-national, unesco, etc. categories where govt. letters are currently at issue.
> 
> More precisely worded proposal:
> Applicants who intend to represent a connection the the authority of a city, sub-national place, unesco region, or appearing on the "Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings" list will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection.
> 
> However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the geographic terms listed above, protections will instead be achieved by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geographic term.
> 
> I do invite comments, questions, and suggestions about this proposed amendment to the existing policy for geo-categories.  I don't claim this is a perfect proposal, but discussion could possibly help lead us to a better policy that attempts to balance differing legitimate interests in a more nuanced way than what we've got now.
> 
> Thank you!
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> **************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway
> **************************************************
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5