The Rock is also a town in Australia, with a population of 860. David
On 17 May 2018, at 5:32 am, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Susan,
Your comment is very valuable:
We HAVE to prevent that places like “rock” have veto rights over brand or generic term based gTLDs! The “Rock” (in Cornwall) you mentioned is a “fishing village” – and as such DOESN’T require any letter of non-objection per the 2012 AGB at all! But the point itself is well taken:
We need to qualify a threshold for protection – most likely by quantifying the population! If we have a 10,000 (or 50,000) inhabitant cut-off: the overlay between those sizeable cities and brands and or generic terms is MINIMAL!
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:23 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
Agreed Greg <> Christopher, you appear to be suggesting that the term “rock” since it happens to be the name of at least one small town in Cornwall, England, and possibly elsewhere, could not be used as a TLD by geologists, landscapers, musicians, etc etc. On what possible legal, or indeed policy, basis? So no, you may not take that as agreed.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: 16 May 2018 21:46 To: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
Christopher wrote:
3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?)
There has been significant— repeated — objection to that proposition, so no, you may not take it that it is agreed in WT5.
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that.
Greg
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:39 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:
Good afternoon:
With respect, this is the first time that I have perceived that in 2012, Geo-Names Review was different from the Geo-Names Panel. I shall try and get my head around that!
Meanwhile, it would clearly be an advantage to have a review function available for ALL Geo-related applications, up front, BEFORE applicants and the mechanisms spend time and money on the approval procedures.
I have already posted several comments that would significantly reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications. Pour Memoire:
1. The application should be from an entity within the jurisdiction of the geo-name in question, and the proposed TLD Registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction. There should not be any incorporations in third country tax havens.
2. There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may be applied for by any one entity.
3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?)
Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and during implementation.
Regards
CW
PS: Since all applications for Geo-Names should have received non-objection letters from the appropriate authorities, I might imagine that the scope for String Contention would be considerably reduced if not eliminated.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>