Sorry Robin, I am trying to figure out what you mean in the following sentence: "Again, it would still prevent TLDs that have no legitimate interest in a geo-word from going forward, but it would allow for other legitimate users to have an opportunity to register the TLD of a word that falls into one of the existing geo-word categories as well." Suppose the beer company Dortmund wants to register .dortmund (a city in Germany) -- only to promote its brand. The beer does come from Dortmund so there is a city connection. Would that be legitimate or not in your book? What is "legitimate interest?" and "non-legitimate interest" and who decides? Thanks Marita On 9/23/2018 5:14 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
I disagree, Jorge. We already have an intended use standard for noncapital city names, so it is something that has already been part of the existing policy with respect to some categories of geo-names. This proposal just takes ICANN's existing policy for noncapital city names and applies it to the other categories of geo-names that are in the guidebook. Again, it would still prevent TLDs that have no legitimate interest in a geo-word from going forward, but it would allow for other legitimate users to have an opportunity to register the TLD of a word that falls into one of the existing geo-word categories as well. Rather than take a “one side takes all” approach as we currently have, which allows one interest to extract “rents” or other concessions from anyone who also has a legitimate interest in using that string, we could try to balance the legitimate interests in order to be fair to all sides. It is worth considering if we are sincere about finding a compromise.
Thanks, Robin
On Sep 21, 2018, at 8:04 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
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@ipjustice.org> Datum: 21. September 2018 um 23:18:39 MESZ An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5