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

Levine, Gertrude glevine at nabp.pharmacy
Fri Jul 17 17:29:44 UTC 2020 

I think Alexander makes a good point here. The restrictions on verified TLDs such as .bank and .pharmacy are much stronger and more targeted than those specified in Category 1 safeguards. There should be some mechanism to object – whether formally or otherwise – if a “trust label” TLD is being exploited.

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 6:24 AM
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

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<mailto:justine.chew at gmail.com>>
Date: 7/17/20 01:02 (GMT+02:00)
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com>>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
http://jjnsolutions.com<http://jjnsolutions.com/>


From: Gnso-newgtld-wg < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org> >
Date: Friday, 10 July 2020 at 19:44
To: " gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto: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<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit?usp=sharing%20%5bdocs.google.com%5d>. 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<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit>):
·         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<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP>) - 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<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP>)
·         Comments will be tracked here<https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw>.

Package 6 revisions of the report, now ready for a final check (beginning on page 118<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit>):
·         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<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report>. And a detailed log with the outcomes from the WG’s consideration of that input is available here<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1blgQjzh_vR7WQ1utsqBnHDb8_b2DD7IDQu-bcJVsmTQ/edit?usp=sharing>.
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<http://www.icann.org/>

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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/b0674f56/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list