Dear Greg, You are describing brands in these words: “Some marks are worth billions of dollars, are registered and used in dozens or even well over a hundred countries, have long histories, and are known and beloved by millions, if not billions of people.” Let’s be fair here: what you describe is a very tiny percentage of “trademarks”: something like “famous marks”. It’s the equivalent to capital cities. Now of all cities – what’s the percentage of capital cities? Tiny. So by describing the crème de la crème of brands – but demanding “no-geo use” provisions for ALL brands (e.g. brands quickly brought into existence just to apply for the matching gTLD): that doesn’t add up. And how big an overlap do we have between “famous brands” (which is likely no legal term – even if we have smth like that in Germany) and cities larger than say 50k people? Should be a TINY overlap. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2018 8:43 AM To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Today's call, and Application of International Law to the GeoNames Provisions of the Applicant Guidebook Well, the idea that there is an "owner" of a resource such as a TLD before it has even been applied for is interesting, though peculiar. But how would one decide which theoretical applicant is that "owner"? Trademarks evoke positive associations, often very significant ones. Indeed, one of the essential elements of a trademark is that possesses "secondary meaning," which is the association between the mark and the attributes of the source or origin of the products and services. This secondary meaning (or "goodwill") in turn is a key component of the value and strength of the mark. Some marks are worth billions of dollars, are registered and used in dozens or even well over a hundred countries, have long histories, and are known and beloved by millions, if not billions of people. As a matter of law and fact, this makes trademarks assets and rights that are "owned" and controlled by particular parties. It's true of course that geographic names can evoke positive associations of varying strength and significance. Others evoke negative associations, and other evoke no significant associations at all. While it might make some sense to call each governments an "owner" of the term when used to identify the place, this "ownership" is largely an analogy and not a fact, particularly by contrast with trademarks, for which ownership is of the essence, and protected by widely accepted treaties, such as the Paris Convention, the Madrid Convention and the GATT, among many others. For that matter, words used in a generic fashion may evoke positive associations (like "raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens ... doorbells and sleigh bells," etc.). However there is no ownership right or control associated with words used in a generic fashion. Many terms may fall into all three categories (and more). There's no particular test to determine whether a term will be more evocative of a place or a brand or a thing. There's no test for which one might predominate in the abstract. Of course, context will help greatly. But in most cases, a brand will not be "leveraging the positive connotations of a city name" where they share the term -- rather it will be a mere coincidence, an irrelevancy. Depending on circumstances, it's just as valid to question whether a brand would want its goodwill to be associated with some city or town. In many other cases, this could be entirely irrelevant, as there would be no association between one usage or another. For example, a .rock TLD marketed to lovers of rock music or used as a brand by Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson would not be associated with the village of Rock. A .bath TLD intended for use in connection with bath products and experiences is not going to be associated with Bath, England. In any case, it's inappropriate and without basis to decide that one type of use reigns supreme over all others in all cases. We could consider some sort of evaluation process to determine if a given trademark is more significant than a given place, in which case an applicant seeking to use the string for the place would need to seek a letter of consent or non-objection from the brand. Or we could decide that every geographic use needs to seek consent or non-objection from every brand owner using that term as their brand -- or maybe we just give that right to equal numbers of brands and marks, based on reaching a certain level of significance (population, economic value, etc.). It's far simpler (and fairer) to favor the applicant as a general matter. After all, they are the one participating in the TLD domain name system. If Delta Airlines applies for .delta, and decides it might be worthwhile for financial or public interest reasons to offer SLDs to Vietnam for mekong.delta and Mississippi for mississippi.delta, that's fine, but it should be the applicant's decision, not something that is forced on them by a system slanted to favor geo-centric interests. A system that determines that there is a single owner of a unique string in which many have an interest for different reasons is unfair and unworkable. It would be even more unfair and unworkable to decide the "winner" in advance, merely based on their type of interest. I doubt we will come anywhere near consensus on such a system. Unlike Giacomo, I won't instruct you to stop talking about it -- that's not the way this process works. But we would be better served by looking at outcomes that better balance varying interests while better keeping in mind the key values f innovation and competition. Best regards, Greg On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> > wrote: Exactly Yrjo. the benefit sharing model will only work if the "owner" of the resource gives their consent in the first place. There have to be seen to be potential benefits to BOTH parties. On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 2:18 AM, Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com <mailto:yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com> > wrote: Hi all, Some geographic names evoke positive images and associations – being, eg. those of famous holiday destinations or of well-known centers of excellence in various fields. An applicant may want to leverage the positive connotations of a city name to promote a product or service, in itself geographically unrelated to the city. In such a case, there might exist an opportunity for benefit-sharing between the applicant and the city. However, it depends on whether the city is willing to be associated with the activity of the applicant – in fact, lending its good name to it. This may not always be the case, cf. “Capri vs. tobacco industry” mentioned by Giacomo some time ago. Best, Yrjö _____ From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone@ebu.ch <mailto:mazzone@ebu.ch> > Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 3:06 PM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> ; javrua@gmail.com <mailto:javrua@gmail.com> ; maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Today's call, and Application of International Law to the GeoNames Provisions of the Applicant Guidebook Of course. This make sense. Message d'origine De: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Envoyé: vendredi, 18 mai 2018 13:52 À: javrua@gmail.com <mailto:javrua@gmail.com> ; maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Objet: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Today's call, and Application of International Law to the GeoNames Provisions of the Applicant Guidebook Hola Javier Such shared-use agreements are, as said, one possible outcome of prior contacts enabled by the non-objection letter :-) Best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com <mailto:javrua@gmail.com> > Datum: 18. Mai 2018 um 13:29:47 MESZ An: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Today's call, and Application of International Law to the GeoNames Provisions of the Applicant Guidebook Very very interesting , Maureen. Thank you. I encourage other WT members to comment on this very specific idea. Javier Rúa-Jovet ALAC +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua <https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua> Javier Rúa-Jovet | LinkedIn www.linkedin.com <http://www.linkedin.com> View Javier Rúa-Jovet’s profile on LinkedIn, the world's largest professional community. Javier has 8 jobs listed on their profile. See the complete profile on LinkedIn and discover Javier’s connections and jobs at similar companies. On May 18, 2018, at 7:02 AM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> >> wrote: Thank you Javier I guess i can explain where it is I am coming from to make such as suggestion. But it makes sense to me because I am working on the development of this policy at the moment. What I am dealing with is an environmental issue (the Nagoya Protocol), and the basics of it are: * There is a provider who owns a particular resource, and a user who wants to share the use of this resource. * The user must first get Prior Informed Consent to get access to the resource (similar to the non-objection letter). * Once this is in hand, they then move onto negotiating a contract which includes an agreement of the benefits (Mutually Agreed Terms) that each party will receive from this contractual relationship. * There are external monitors (Checkpoints) who make sure that all agreements are kept and benefits are being attributed, etc. But that's it (in a nutshell). On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 12:39 AM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com <mailto:javrua@gmail.com> <mailto:javrua@gmail.com <mailto:javrua@gmail.com> >> wrote: Maureen, Please do share that idea! There has been substantial discussion on conflict avoidance models, and even some “TLD sharing” in these wt5 threads. Your contribution would definitely be appreciated! Javier Rúa-Jovet ALAC +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua On May 18, 2018, at 5:59 AM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> >> wrote: I think that core to Mazzone's argument for me, is : “ What if there were ways to allow uses of the TLD by the applicant, but in some way also allowing the applicable government to also get some use? I am currently working in an day job that has nothing to do with ICANN or TLDs, but the content that I am working with relates to "benefit-sharing". And I wondered if this model could be incorporated into the discussion, where the government and the applicant might be able to make an agreement on some mutual benefit/s of sharing a name. Just a thought along the lines of what I am dealing with in a completely different context but, would that ever work here? On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 11:48 PM, Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone@ebu.ch <mailto:mazzone@ebu.ch> <mailto:mazzone@ebu.ch <mailto:mazzone@ebu.ch> >> wrote: Dear colleagues, I think that we are insisting on a dead-end row, when we discuss about the „intended use“. This concept does not help when we are talking about a unique resource. If we look at some of the most contentious TLD of the last round (most of them unresolved till today) - Amazon - Patagonia - Spa - Africa - GCC How such a concept of the “intended use” would have helped ? I cannot figure out at all. We need to skip this concept from the debate and find real solutions applicable when we talk of a unique resource as today are TLDs. I think that what Jeff Neuman proposal about possible dual use of TLD needs to be explored. I remember here what he said few days ago: * “ What if there were ways to allow uses of the TLD by the applicant, but in some way also allowing the applicable government to also get some use? * I do know of at least one situation (which I am not sure is publicly known….so cannot go into detail) where two parties had an interest in a particular TLD and arrangements were made to ensure both parties were entitled in some ways to use the space.” ICANN role is to find positive and creative solutions and to act in the public interest. This would be an interesting challenge to explore, instead than wasting time with the concept of the “intended use”, that has proved not to solve the issues we are discussing here. Giacomo