[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Reminder: Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6

Alexander Schubert alexander at schubert.berlin
Fri Jul 17 11:23:56 UTC 2020


    
Hi Justine,And you are right: while it might occur to many that the "adoption of category 1 restrictions" has mitigated all risks we have to have a closer look:If you look at the GAC laundry list (please correct me but I assume it is http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-2-05feb14-en.pdf) then those are very basic restrictions. Minimum restrictions. If someone were to create a .bank clone in Spanish but had only to adhere to those CAT1 restrictions - that would be a far cry from the trust level the Internet user enjoys from the .bank restrictions.If someone sets a high bar in regards to consumer trust (using a gTLD as "trust label") - then the Internet user gets used to assign special trust to for example .bank domains (which is the entire point of their enormous high level restrictions). Thus a similar string (e.g. in Spanish) should at minimum provide similar high consumer trust (restrictions). That doesn't only extend to direct translations.So at bare minimum should .bank be able to object such applications on such grounds; regardless whether both gTLDs are introduced in the same or different rounds. We are talking a lot about innovations, gTLDs as trust labels (all of the projects that I lead run under the flag of "Trust Label" for the Internet User) etc.; so once someone establishes such innovative concept - how do we enable them to defend it? In my mind not just with CAT1.Thanks,Alexander Sent from my Samsung device

-------- Original message --------
From: Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com> 
Date: 7/17/20  01:02  (GMT+02:00) 
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com> 
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org 
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Reminder: Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 

I think it's important that we include more context - whatever it may be - because the current paragraph doesn't explain WHY recommending adoption of Category 1 restrictions "has mitigated in the minds of many" the concerns regarding exact translations of Category 1 strings. Not in my mind, at least.Justine-----On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, 22:53 Alan Greenberg, <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:


I haven't checked the Board resolution enacting the restrictions, but the
original GAC advice said "The GAC considers that Safeguards should
apply to broad categories of strings. For clarity, this means any
application for a relevant string in the current or future rounds, in
all languages applied for."
Alan
At 2020-07-15 10:40 AM, Justine Chew wrote:
Jeff,
I understand what you are saying to be what is in that paragraph I
quoted. What I don't quite understand is how that concern has been
mitigated by the adoption of the category 1 restrictions. Do the category
1 restrictions also apply to exact translations of category 1
strings?
Thanks,
Justine
---

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 at 22:31, Jeff Neuman
<jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
wrote:



Justine,

 

The short answer is that exact translations are allowed to be applied
for now.

 

Longer Answer is that the principal concern initially expressed by
the regulated TLDs was that someone would apply for an exact translation
of an existing regulated string but not apply the restrictions that are
currently in the existing TLD.  Before we discussed/recommended the
adoption of the category 1 restrictions, this was a true concern. 
Now that we are recommending the adoption of the category 1 restrictions,
that concern (although not totally gone) has been mitigated in the minds
of many.  So there was no need to establish a new class of
objections for the existing regulated TLD registry.

 

Hope that makes sense.

 



 



Jeffrey J. Neuman

Founder & CEO

JJN Solutions, LLC

p: +1.202.549.5079

E:
jeff at jjnsolutions.com


http://jjnsolutions.com

 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg
<
gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Justine
Chew

Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 8:30 PM

To:
gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org


Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Reminder: Deadline Wed 15 July -
"Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on
Revised Package 6

 

Jeff, Cheryl,

I would like to seek clarification on one paragraph under part c. of
Objections



c. New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the
Initial Report, if applicable.

The Working Group discussed a proposal that there should be grounds
for a formal objection if an applied-for string is an exact translation
of an existing TLD string that is in a highly regulated sector, and the
applied-for string would not employ the same safeguards as the existing
TLD, subject to the applicant’s governing law. This proposal would
potentially require creating a new type of objection. The rationale for
this proposal is that end-users may be confused and assume that both
strings have the same safeguards in place. A concern was raised that this
proposal could potentially harm competition and discourage the use of
innovative business models. The Working Group determined that because the
Working Group agreed upon Category 1 restrictions for regulated strings,
there is no need for the objection process. 



My question is what happens if there is an application for a string
which is an exact translation of an existing TLD string that is in a
highly regulated sector, i.e. one marked for Category 1 restrictions for
regulated strings - how is such an applied-for string dealt
with?

Thanks,

Justine

---

 

 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 01:47, Emily Barabas
<emily.barabas at icann.org
> wrote:



Dear all,

 

As a reminder, the deadline for Can’t Live With comments on package
7 and a final check on package 6 is Wednesday 15 July at 23:59 UTC.
Details below.

 

Kind regards,

Emily

 

From: Emily Barabas
<emily.barabas at icann.org
>

Date: Friday, 10 July 2020 at 19:44

To:
"
gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org"
<
gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>

Subject: Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With"
Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6

 

Dear all,

 

The following are now available for your review in the

production document. The deadline for comments is Wednesday 15
July at 23:59 UTC.
Package 7 sections of the Report are now ready for “Can’t
Live With† review (beginning on

page 148): 

·         Please limit
comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot
live with.† If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out
the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide
your input in any other format.

·         Package 7 includes
two report sections: 

·         2.5.4 Applicant
Support (last discussed on

11 June) - For this section, please limit “Can’t Live With†
comments to the new text in the section, which is displayed in black.
The text in grey has already gone through “Can’t Live With† review
as part of an earlier package.

·         2.3.2 Registry
Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) / Public Interest Commitments (PICs)
(last discussed on

18 June)

·         Comments will be
tracked here.

 
Package 6 revisions of the report, now ready for a final
check (beginning on

page 118): 

·         Please limit
feedback to errors in the edits, for example a revision that you believe
does not accurately reflect the outcome of discussions about a “Can’t
Live With† item.

·         Please send this
type of feedback to the mailing list. Typo corrections can be sent
directly to staff.

·         For package 6
sections, please do not raise new issues, introduce new “Can’t Live
With† items, or re-open deliberations. 

·         A high-level
summary of the “Can’t Live With† input received is available

here. And a detailed log with the outcomes from the WG’s
consideration of that input is available

here.

Kind regards,

Emily

 

 

Emily Barabas

Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

www.icann.org

 

_______________________________________________

Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list


Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org



https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

_______________________________________________

By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of
your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list
accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
(
https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of
Service
(
https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link
above to change your membership status or configuration, including
unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery
altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.


Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png"
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"
Content-ID: <17352e5a4654cff311>
X-Attachment-Id: 17352e5a4654cff311
Content-Type: image/png; name="image004.png"
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image004.png"
Content-ID: <17352e5a4657745b42>
X-Attachment-Id: 17352e5a4657745b42

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
with the ICANN Privacy Policy
(
https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of
Service
(
https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link
above to change your membership status or configuration, including
unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery
altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200717/2da09eb0/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list