Dear All I share , to a great extent,the view points of Alexander as described in his preliminary reply Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 4 Oct 2018, at 23:49, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi WT 5,
Over the weekend I will submit a longer comment about the issue of the terminology in “recommendation 11” = non-capital cities (pages 4 and 5 of 21 in the word document “DRAFT - WT5 Initial Report - Sections C-E - 27.9.2018 - with comments-1”)
The text right now states (unchanged from the 2012 AGB) that applicants ONLY require a “letter of non-objection” from the relevant authorities (city government) if: a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name
I will elaborate on both: “use” (by the applicant) and “primarily”. In my mind BOTH will have to be reversed: · “foreseeable use” by the “REGISTRANTS” (rather than then “intended or projected use by the applicant entity”) · and not limited to “primary use”– but something like “significant use”. “Primarily” could arguably be considered “90% or more”. “Significant” would probably start at 20% or the like. The geo panel would need a few guidelines here as well!
I don’t care what or what not an applicant is dreaming of – that needs to be determined by the geo panel! If it is a closed brand application: obviously the case is clear. If it is a generic term like “rock” (music) and there is a small city of a few thousand people named “Rock”: it’s kind of clear that the significant majority of registrants will use the 2nd level domains in connotation with “Rock Music” (or other generic meanings of the term “rock” like moon.rock). But if somebody were to apply for an open gTLD .chicago, .shanghai or .frankfurt and would claim that there is “no primary use associated with the city intended” – sorry: then the applicant is either delusional or tries to circumvent the necessity to acquire a letter of non-objection from the relevant city Government. This litmus test should NOT be outsourced to the APPLICANT – but it should be a task executed by the geo-panel. You can’t make the goat the gardener. At least WE (ICANN) should not do so. A brand or a real generic term based application that is only “circumstantially” targeting a small city – that is one thing. Somebody applying for “.shanghai” trying to play tricks on the geo panel (and in fact on the entire ICANN community, and the city community of Shanghai): not cool. Doesn’t fly.
In my email I will also specifically explain why this is deemed a risk in the next round when there weren’t any notable problems in the 2012 round. If anybody is interested in hearing my notion on that problematic: shout out to me – and I will elaborate further.
In that light I suggest the following language (this is so to speak the litmus test whether an applicant needs a letter of non-objection).
An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if: 2012 AGB: a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name Revision: a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name
This way a brand applicant should generally have no problem at all (closed gTLD). And an applicant for a generic dictionary term with broad utilization in the DNS should also have no problems. But we would prevent that lazy (or cheating) applicants skip the line – and go for a city name WITHOUT looping in the city. That would be unfair to applicants that get the city’s support, unfair to the city itself and unfair to the city’s constituents.
Comments? It would be nice if members that support this language would make themselves heard. I would wish to see my recommendation prominently positioned in the report – that will only happen if my notion finds support.
Alexander.berlin
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 12:43 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 03 October 2018
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (03 October). These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted on the wiki.
Please also find attached the referenced document in PDF and Word including comments.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items:
Actions:
ACTION ITEM: Preliminary recommendation #2: Add a footnote explaining what "character" means
Notes:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates
2. Draft Initial Report Sections: Preliminary Recommendations, Options, and Questions
-- Comments about missing points -- the deliberation sections are still to come. This is just three sections of six. -- These are just arguments/recommendations/options at this point. -- The question is are these the right alternatives to put out for public comment. -- Questions for community input -- asking if these make sense and if anything is missing. -- Any content is subject to public comment.
Preliminary recommendation #1: -- Use of the word "certain" suggests there are other strings we have not addressed. Suggest deleting the word. -- Can we make it clear here that we are talking about the AGB as written rather than as applied? I don't think we want as applied.
Preliminary recommendation #2: -- Question: We don't give any explanation for why we are making this recommendation. Answer: The explanation will be reflected in the deliberations in the Initial Report. Section C is just the text of the deliberations. There will be much more text in Section F on the deliberations, including pros and cons. -- Looking at the last bullet point re: WT2 considering letter-number combinations -- should this also refer to number-number combinations? ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote explaining what "character" means.
Preliminary recommendation #3: -- Move this into the category of strings that could be applied for with documentation on support or non-objection. -- See also comments from Christopher Wilkinson. -- There were discussions about how many of these are generic words as well as three-letter country codes. There was a wider debate that was outside of scope since it was ccNSO territory. With that in mind that is how we got to this recommendation. There was quite a lot of debate on this. -- Do we need to clarify that we are not recommending that any 3-character codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard be removed from delegation? Or that .com should be removed from delegation? -- Could have country names that could be delegated -- if Canada wants .canada there should be a pathway for them to getting it. -- Not in favor of allowing the delegation of geographic names for non-geographic use.
Preliminary recommendation #4: -- The problem is that we have not gotten agreement on prior authorization and geographical use. As long as we have no consensus we have to maintain this restriction.
Recommendation #5: -- Question: We say we recommend continuing something in the AGB but then we say it's a revision. Are we saying the AGB is inconsistent with GNSO policy? Answer: Some members would like to see whether there is a discrepancy between the AGB and the policy -- so saying it is consistent with the AGB, but is not consistent with the policy. -- Suggest: "As noted above this recommendation is consistent with the AGB as written [not "as drafted"] and doesn't address the issue of translation of these strings. However, this is a revision to GNSO policy..." -- Agree with the change above but not the order. You had the policy first and then the AGB. -- Maybe need an explanation somewhere at the beginning of the document.
Preliminary recommendation #6 -- The only thing that is listed are the code --- there are no names associated with a code as "exceptionally reserved". -- This is a category that was in the 2012 AGB. -- Example is "UK" -- The code is reserved on the ISO site, but not the name. -- Append a list for the actual report. -- When there is something reserved it doesn't mean that it is connected the specific area where we talk about it. As to whether there is a list -- there used to be a list available on request from the ISO secretariat.
Preliminary recommendation #7: No objections
Preliminary recommendation #8: Third bullet has same issue as mentioned above -- No "exceptionally reserved" in the ISO 3166.
Preliminary recommendation #9: No objections
Preliminary recommendation #10: No objections
Preliminary recommendation #11: Comments from the list: -- Discussion of intended use is included in the deliberation section, including pros and cons. -- Comment premature to include this preliminary recommendation as it stands. -- Consider the use of the word "primarily" as in "use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name". Maybe it isn't quite the right word, but we would want to avoid unintended consequences. Also, not clear what we mean by "use". This language was in the 2012 AGB -- not saying it was perfect, but don't recall this ever becoming an issue with a city name. Before we suggest changes let's look at what happened in 2012. -- One could also say if the applicant considers any use for the city he will have to get a letter from the city. -- There has been a lot of back and forth on this issue -- we need to really take a look at whether we want to foreclose a bunch of words. -- Ignores free expression rights to use words with geographic meaning in lawful ways. -- Could address by putting in a contractual requirement that is more specific continuing to not use a TLD in a geographic sense.
Preliminary recommendation #12: -- Need a separate recommendation dealing with the currency codes (ISO 4217). they are very important in the financial markets. -- Don't support adding protection of the currency code. -- The sub-national place names should be open for reservation for non-geographic uses without a letter of support or non-objection.
2. ICANN63:
-- Released 3 subsections of the Initial Report. Only a few comments so far. -- Idea is to give people another week to submit comment, and then we will release the full package of the Initial Report. -- Idea is that in addition to doing status updates and outreach at ICANN63 we'll have time to potentially get broader community input on issues, as well as to note what might be missing. -- Three sessions on Saturday morning with lunch at the last session. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5