Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> wrote:
IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon
-------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file- attach/annex-1- gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- 3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field- 2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines- 2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6 sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m= NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s= g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt<http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1- gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org>] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
+1 Nick After months of discussion this group had come up with a general consensus of long and short form of forms of country and territory names part of ISO 3166. We still have many categories to discuss and we should work on moving forward and not opening up discussions that as a group we had finally agreed. Best, Rosalía [cid:B190111C-4AAD-456E-809F-8934B6CA8935] On Aug 9, 2018, at 9:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt<http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1- gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith < Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> wrote:
Hi Mike
Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’.
Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies.
If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there.
I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses.
Best wishes
Nick
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* 10 August 2018 03:35 *To:* Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> *Cc:* leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."
Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> wrote:
IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon
-------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file- attach/annex-1- gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- 3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field- 2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines- 2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6 sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m= NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s= g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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
Countries don't "own" anything especially when it comes to generic names. Farzaneh On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 9:09 PM Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list.
It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith < Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> wrote:
Hi Mike
Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’.
Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies.
If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there.
I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses.
Best wishes
Nick
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* 10 August 2018 03:35 *To:* Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> *Cc:* leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."
Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> wrote:
IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon
-------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-
gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org] < https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...
.
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Different people gave different understanding of who should owns what. Some people are more royalists than the king. I do not wish to dispute on who is right and who is wrong. ICANN is not an organisation which establishes basic rules for nations Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Aug 2018, at 04:48, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:
Countries don't "own" anything especially when it comes to generic names.
Farzaneh
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 9:09 PM Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list.
It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> wrote: Hi Mike
Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’.
Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies.
If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there.
I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses.
Best wishes
Nick
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> wrote:
IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon
-------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1- gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list.
It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> wrote: Hi Mike
Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’.
Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies.
If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there.
I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses.
Best wishes
Nick
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> wrote:
IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon
-------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1- gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear WT, Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money. And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand. Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective: People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue). I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s). I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them. And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern. But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF. Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples: * A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”? o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them. * A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here! o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE! City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries? We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc). Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in? We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> > wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk <mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> > wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia> > Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia> > wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> > Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > 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> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt <http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt> ) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> > Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> >:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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> > *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1- gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org> ] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> &d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> .
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Thanks Alexander. There are a lot of heated words in this post – “attack”, “pollute”, “enemy”, “shame”, “vulture”,etc. I wonder if you might try again and distill the arguments you are trying to make down to their essence. I’m afraid whatever point you are trying to make is getting lost in the rhetoric. I’d truly like to understand. Also, if you are willing, is it possible to dispense with the false dichotomy of governments and brand owners? There are lots of non-brand owners who value speech free from governmental control and their voice needs to be heard here as well; otherwise, we are just having 2/3rds of the conversation we need to have. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 7:10 AM To: 'leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear WT, Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money. And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand. Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective: People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue). I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s). I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them. And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern. But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF. Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples: · A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”? o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them. · A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here! o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE! City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries? We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc). Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in? We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466305992&sdata=6t2NfjLjKSIOho7U0upl5EjOvUAkt6LN7b96zQEFdh8%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466305992&sdata=6t2NfjLjKSIOho7U0upl5EjOvUAkt6LN7b96zQEFdh8%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466316000&sdata=eJI9P9jT1BZsSj7aAxZVifq2GulUwmnBWNCF2ANNLhM%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Fr...>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffile%2Ffield-file-attach%2Fannex-1-&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466326008&sdata=M4cP1ZGPoyVQ6HZFQIVYckJ0IcKkWlecd%2BR%2FUzoKiVw%3D&reserved=0> gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.o...>] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466336012&sdata=AKpuwGWyTdhX7IFhiIPAkWirSCjkvTC7WtY%2BknMlGwo%3D&reserved=0>> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466346029&sdata=aISlo6DrcqaUtErQH8NrNlyPmuERjMm7zCAHkllU1RE%3D&reserved=0>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466356037&sdata=HlQnE5%2BpkUGHCQkH7vPl4sGJswCs2%2Ftk1FZLH%2BtFlsg%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466356037&sdata=HlQnE5%2BpkUGHCQkH7vPl4sGJswCs2%2Ftk1FZLH%2BtFlsg%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466366041&sdata=cSxtJKC%2BPA7fkAhwBVpHkhCabpYg2jK9YrapnS7Okhs%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Dear Paul, Apologies if any brand feels attacked. To keep this more general: There are natural geo-communities with millions of individuals and a wide array of community relevant stakeholders and constituents (among them Government operated ones). They have interests and these need to be protected. That function is by definition delegated to their (city or national) Governments. The main question is: If non-geo use applications are equal in rights to for example city designated applications; doesn’t that in the current AGB mean that “big bucks” win (because it ends up in the last resort auction)? With “vultures” I do not address “brands” – but applicants that try shady tricks. Smth we haven’t really see in 2012 – but which we know exist in the .com space; and these entities will try to do their “dark magic” in the top level space as well. So the question at hand: other than outbidding traditionally financial potent brands (which usually have big marketing budgets) – how else could city constituents of a sizeable city defend their identity on top-level? If we keep the non-geo use clause in place even for sizeable cities; what else can safe city populations and their constituents? In your opinion: would a community objection against a brand application work? How would YOU counter argue? Would you simply rest your case? Brands vs. city seems to me heavily stacked towards the “brand”. Hence the request to protect “sizeable cities” as well as country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2). Brands would keep their non-geo use for most of the city names. And the few really large cities that enjoy the protection likely wouldn’t collide with any brand. If so: in my book a Million people community tops a brand. A question of “culture”. And that’s what the PDP actually is all about: defining a culture how applications are treated. Thanks, Alexander From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 16:56 To: alexander@schubert.berlin; 'leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Thanks Alexander. There are a lot of heated words in this post – “attack”, “pollute”, “enemy”, “shame”, “vulture”,etc. I wonder if you might try again and distill the arguments you are trying to make down to their essence. I’m afraid whatever point you are trying to make is getting lost in the rhetoric. I’d truly like to understand. Also, if you are willing, is it possible to dispense with the false dichotomy of governments and brand owners? There are lots of non-brand owners who value speech free from governmental control and their voice needs to be heard here as well; otherwise, we are just having 2/3rds of the conversation we need to have. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 7:10 AM To: 'leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear WT, Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money. And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand. Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective: People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue). I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s). I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them. And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern. But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF. Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples: * A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”? o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them. * A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here! o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE! City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries? We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc). Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in? We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> > Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia> >; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> > wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk <mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> > wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia> > Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia> > wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> > Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > 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> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Fr...> ) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> > Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> >:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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> > *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1- <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann....> gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.o...> ] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> .
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> _____ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Hi Alexander, Just to clarify - based on my experience of applying for a dotBrand in the last round and talking to other dotBrand applicants, it’s extremely rare to have an open wallet for a TLD application. Even in large organisations, budgets are limited and a viable business case for a (non-revenue generating) dotBrand TLD will be challenged and in competition with many other initiatives. To suggest there is unlimited resources (or even substantial resources) available by brands is not realistic, even for the application process, let alone the thought of an auction. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> www.brandregistrygroup.org<http://www.brandregistrygroup.org> The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. On 17 Aug 2018, at 15:54, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Dear Paul, Apologies if any brand feels attacked. To keep this more general: There are natural geo-communities with millions of individuals and a wide array of community relevant stakeholders and constituents (among them Government operated ones). They have interests and these need to be protected. That function is by definition delegated to their (city or national) Governments. The main question is: If non-geo use applications are equal in rights to for example city designated applications; doesn’t that in the current AGB mean that “big bucks” win (because it ends up in the last resort auction)? With “vultures” I do not address “brands” – but applicants that try shady tricks. Smth we haven’t really see in 2012 – but which we know exist in the .com space; and these entities will try to do their “dark magic” in the top level space as well. So the question at hand: other than outbidding traditionally financial potent brands (which usually have big marketing budgets) – how else could city constituents of a sizeable city defend their identity on top-level? If we keep the non-geo use clause in place even for sizeable cities; what else can safe city populations and their constituents? In your opinion: would a community objection against a brand application work? How would YOU counter argue? Would you simply rest your case? Brands vs. city seems to me heavily stacked towards the “brand”. Hence the request to protect “sizeable cities” as well as country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2). Brands would keep their non-geo use for most of the city names. And the few really large cities that enjoy the protection likely wouldn’t collide with any brand. If so: in my book a Million people community tops a brand. A question of “culture”. And that’s what the PDP actually is all about: defining a culture how applications are treated. Thanks, Alexander From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 16:56 To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; 'leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Thanks Alexander. There are a lot of heated words in this post – “attack”, “pollute”, “enemy”, “shame”, “vulture”,etc. I wonder if you might try again and distill the arguments you are trying to make down to their essence. I’m afraid whatever point you are trying to make is getting lost in the rhetoric. I’d truly like to understand. Also, if you are willing, is it possible to dispense with the false dichotomy of governments and brand owners? There are lots of non-brand owners who value speech free from governmental control and their voice needs to be heard here as well; otherwise, we are just having 2/3rds of the conversation we need to have. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 7:10 AM To: 'leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear WT, Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money. And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand. Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective: People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue). I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s). I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them. And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern. But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF. Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples: • A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”? o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them. • A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here! o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE! City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries? We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc). Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in? We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466305992&sdata=6t2NfjLjKSIOho7U0upl5EjOvUAkt6LN7b96zQEFdh8%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466305992&sdata=6t2NfjLjKSIOho7U0upl5EjOvUAkt6LN7b96zQEFdh8%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466316000&sdata=eJI9P9jT1BZsSj7aAxZVifq2GulUwmnBWNCF2ANNLhM%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Fr...>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffile%2Ffield-file-attach%2Fannex-1-&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466326008&sdata=M4cP1ZGPoyVQ6HZFQIVYckJ0IcKkWlecd%2BR%2FUzoKiVw%3D&reserved=0> gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.o...>] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466336012&sdata=AKpuwGWyTdhX7IFhiIPAkWirSCjkvTC7WtY%2BknMlGwo%3D&reserved=0>> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466346029&sdata=aISlo6DrcqaUtErQH8NrNlyPmuERjMm7zCAHkllU1RE%3D&reserved=0>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466356037&sdata=HlQnE5%2BpkUGHCQkH7vPl4sGJswCs2%2Ftk1FZLH%2BtFlsg%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466356037&sdata=HlQnE5%2BpkUGHCQkH7vPl4sGJswCs2%2Ftk1FZLH%2BtFlsg%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466366041&sdata=cSxtJKC%2BPA7fkAhwBVpHkhCabpYg2jK9YrapnS7Okhs%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks Alexander. I don’t think any brand felt attacked – the point was that by creating the false government v. brand narrative, we are ignoring the voice of those who think they should speak for themselves rather than seeking permission from their government first. That is an important perspective and one that we should keep in mind. To answer your specific question “other than outbidding traditionally financial potent brands (which usually have big marketing budgets) – how else could city constituents of a sizeable city defend their identity on top-level?” Answer: If it is legal in their jurisdiction to pass a law prohibiting the use of a top level domain name which corresponds to their city, then pass that law. ICANN can then decide how it wants to act on that law. ICANN, however, is not a supranational legislator with the remit to pass such a law on behalf of these theoretically aggrieved cities and, even if it was in ICANN’s remit, it would be overkill since not all cities have the right to pass law which serves as a prior restraint on speech (for example, every single city within the US can’t do that). Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 9:55 AM To: 'leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear Paul, Apologies if any brand feels attacked. To keep this more general: There are natural geo-communities with millions of individuals and a wide array of community relevant stakeholders and constituents (among them Government operated ones). They have interests and these need to be protected. That function is by definition delegated to their (city or national) Governments. The main question is: If non-geo use applications are equal in rights to for example city designated applications; doesn’t that in the current AGB mean that “big bucks” win (because it ends up in the last resort auction)? With “vultures” I do not address “brands” – but applicants that try shady tricks. Smth we haven’t really see in 2012 – but which we know exist in the .com space; and these entities will try to do their “dark magic” in the top level space as well. So the question at hand: other than outbidding traditionally financial potent brands (which usually have big marketing budgets) – how else could city constituents of a sizeable city defend their identity on top-level? If we keep the non-geo use clause in place even for sizeable cities; what else can safe city populations and their constituents? In your opinion: would a community objection against a brand application work? How would YOU counter argue? Would you simply rest your case? Brands vs. city seems to me heavily stacked towards the “brand”. Hence the request to protect “sizeable cities” as well as country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2). Brands would keep their non-geo use for most of the city names. And the few really large cities that enjoy the protection likely wouldn’t collide with any brand. If so: in my book a Million people community tops a brand. A question of “culture”. And that’s what the PDP actually is all about: defining a culture how applications are treated. Thanks, Alexander From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 16:56 To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; 'leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Thanks Alexander. There are a lot of heated words in this post – “attack”, “pollute”, “enemy”, “shame”, “vulture”,etc. I wonder if you might try again and distill the arguments you are trying to make down to their essence. I’m afraid whatever point you are trying to make is getting lost in the rhetoric. I’d truly like to understand. Also, if you are willing, is it possible to dispense with the false dichotomy of governments and brand owners? There are lots of non-brand owners who value speech free from governmental control and their voice needs to be heard here as well; otherwise, we are just having 2/3rds of the conversation we need to have. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 7:10 AM To: 'leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear WT, Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money. And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand. Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective: People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue). I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s). I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them. And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern. But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF. Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples: · A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”? o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them. · A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here! o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE! City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries? We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc). Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in? We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C35849d68e3294c81f6c308d60451539b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701144674343698&sdata=yofEA2gysaw5BgCpfxlr%2F6ukve57C92dVeH5LMdJqso%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C35849d68e3294c81f6c308d60451539b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701144674343698&sdata=yofEA2gysaw5BgCpfxlr%2F6ukve57C92dVeH5LMdJqso%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C35849d68e3294c81f6c308d60451539b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701144674343698&sdata=yofEA2gysaw5BgCpfxlr%2F6ukve57C92dVeH5LMdJqso%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Fr...>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffile%2Ffield-file-attach%2Fannex-1-&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C35849d68e3294c81f6c308d60451539b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701144674343698&sdata=reAc%2FR9IxrzWATXgbGzBo8%2FTWMcsnpuNbw2VgW%2Bs3Sw%3D&reserved=0> gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.o...>] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C35849d68e3294c81f6c308d60451539b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701144674343698&sdata=Fdv%2BB0DiTEd5yHH2pKrI5AUknnF0JkwxVbSDvCIXeCc%3D&reserved=0>> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C35849d68e3294c81f6c308d60451539b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701144674499947&sdata=GnS61OHno%2BGMqpQgrjhHdHVVNW9CuCVSseqi5ZDqj3I%3D&reserved=0>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C35849d68e3294c81f6c308d60451539b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701144674499947&sdata=GnS61OHno%2BGMqpQgrjhHdHVVNW9CuCVSseqi5ZDqj3I%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C35849d68e3294c81f6c308d60451539b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701144674499947&sdata=GnS61OHno%2BGMqpQgrjhHdHVVNW9CuCVSseqi5ZDqj3I%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C35849d68e3294c81f6c308d60451539b%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701144674499947&sdata=GnS61OHno%2BGMqpQgrjhHdHVVNW9CuCVSseqi5ZDqj3I%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Dear Paul, So my question was: “…..other than outbidding traditionally financial potent brands (which usually have big marketing budgets) – how else could city constituents of a sizeable city defend their identity on top-level?” And you kind of answered it already: There seems to be NOTHING a city can really do! I asked before, and I do again: A brand applied for the name of a sizeable non-capital city (let’s say with a population of a Million plus people) – and the city provided support for another applicant; how does contention resolution work? In my opinion this would go straight to the last resort auction, right (because of the “non-geo use provision”)? There would be no possibility for the city to file “objection”. Or is there? Imagine a U.S. based 5 Million people city filed objection to an Italian brand over the application: Do you see ANY chance for the city to prevail, and if so. On what premises? Regarding the “solution” to “pass a law”: be careful what you wish for. So you tell me that if a city of 10,000 people in India, Russia or Congo created a local ordinance that forbids ICANN to use their city name as gTLD: then an American brand with the same name could not anymore apply for the string? How so? Which part of the AGB specifies the process that would enable the city to stop the application? Thanks, Alexander From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 7:59 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin; 'leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Thanks Alexander. I don’t think any brand felt attacked – the point was that by creating the false government v. brand narrative, we are ignoring the voice of those who think they should speak for themselves rather than seeking permission from their government first. That is an important perspective and one that we should keep in mind. To answer your specific question “other than outbidding traditionally financial potent brands (which usually have big marketing budgets) – how else could city constituents of a sizeable city defend their identity on top-level?” Answer: If it is legal in their jurisdiction to pass a law prohibiting the use of a top level domain name which corresponds to their city, then pass that law. ICANN can then decide how it wants to act on that law. ICANN, however, is not a supranational legislator with the remit to pass such a law on behalf of these theoretically aggrieved cities and, even if it was in ICANN’s remit, it would be overkill since not all cities have the right to pass law which serves as a prior restraint on speech (for example, every single city within the US can’t do that). Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 9:55 AM To: 'leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear Paul, Apologies if any brand feels attacked. To keep this more general: There are natural geo-communities with millions of individuals and a wide array of community relevant stakeholders and constituents (among them Government operated ones). They have interests and these need to be protected. That function is by definition delegated to their (city or national) Governments. The main question is: If non-geo use applications are equal in rights to for example city designated applications; doesn’t that in the current AGB mean that “big bucks” win (because it ends up in the last resort auction)? With “vultures” I do not address “brands” – but applicants that try shady tricks. Smth we haven’t really see in 2012 – but which we know exist in the .com space; and these entities will try to do their “dark magic” in the top level space as well. So the question at hand: other than outbidding traditionally financial potent brands (which usually have big marketing budgets) – how else could city constituents of a sizeable city defend their identity on top-level? If we keep the non-geo use clause in place even for sizeable cities; what else can safe city populations and their constituents? In your opinion: would a community objection against a brand application work? How would YOU counter argue? Would you simply rest your case? Brands vs. city seems to me heavily stacked towards the “brand”. Hence the request to protect “sizeable cities” as well as country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2). Brands would keep their non-geo use for most of the city names. And the few really large cities that enjoy the protection likely wouldn’t collide with any brand. If so: in my book a Million people community tops a brand. A question of “culture”. And that’s what the PDP actually is all about: defining a culture how applications are treated. Thanks, Alexander From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 16:56 To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> ; 'leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Thanks Alexander. There are a lot of heated words in this post – “attack”, “pollute”, “enemy”, “shame”, “vulture”,etc. I wonder if you might try again and distill the arguments you are trying to make down to their essence. I’m afraid whatever point you are trying to make is getting lost in the rhetoric. I’d truly like to understand. Also, if you are willing, is it possible to dispense with the false dichotomy of governments and brand owners? There are lots of non-brand owners who value speech free from governmental control and their voice needs to be heard here as well; otherwise, we are just having 2/3rds of the conversation we need to have. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 7:10 AM To: 'leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear WT, Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money. And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand. Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective: People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue). I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s). I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them. And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern. But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF. Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples: * A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”? o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them. * A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here! o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE! City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries? We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc). Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in? We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> > Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia> >; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> > wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk <mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> > wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia> > Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia> > wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> > Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > 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> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Fr...> ) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> > Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> >:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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> > *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1- <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann....> gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.o...> ] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> .
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> _____ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Hi Alexander, AGB Section 4.2.3 “It should be noted that a qualified community application eliminates all directly contending standard applications, regardless of how well qualified the latter may be.” Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:04 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear Paul, So my question was: “…..other than outbidding traditionally financial potent brands (which usually have big marketing budgets) – how else could city constituents of a sizeable city defend their identity on top-level?” And you kind of answered it already: There seems to be NOTHING a city can really do! I asked before, and I do again: A brand applied for the name of a sizeable non-capital city (let’s say with a population of a Million plus people) – and the city provided support for another applicant; how does contention resolution work? In my opinion this would go straight to the last resort auction, right (because of the “non-geo use provision”)? There would be no possibility for the city to file “objection”. Or is there? Imagine a U.S. based 5 Million people city filed objection to an Italian brand over the application: Do you see ANY chance for the city to prevail, and if so. On what premises? Regarding the “solution” to “pass a law”: be careful what you wish for. So you tell me that if a city of 10,000 people in India, Russia or Congo created a local ordinance that forbids ICANN to use their city name as gTLD: then an American brand with the same name could not anymore apply for the string? How so? Which part of the AGB specifies the process that would enable the city to stop the application? Thanks, Alexander From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 7:59 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; 'leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Thanks Alexander. I don’t think any brand felt attacked – the point was that by creating the false government v. brand narrative, we are ignoring the voice of those who think they should speak for themselves rather than seeking permission from their government first. That is an important perspective and one that we should keep in mind. To answer your specific question “other than outbidding traditionally financial potent brands (which usually have big marketing budgets) – how else could city constituents of a sizeable city defend their identity on top-level?” Answer: If it is legal in their jurisdiction to pass a law prohibiting the use of a top level domain name which corresponds to their city, then pass that law. ICANN can then decide how it wants to act on that law. ICANN, however, is not a supranational legislator with the remit to pass such a law on behalf of these theoretically aggrieved cities and, even if it was in ICANN’s remit, it would be overkill since not all cities have the right to pass law which serves as a prior restraint on speech (for example, every single city within the US can’t do that). Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 9:55 AM To: 'leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear Paul, Apologies if any brand feels attacked. To keep this more general: There are natural geo-communities with millions of individuals and a wide array of community relevant stakeholders and constituents (among them Government operated ones). They have interests and these need to be protected. That function is by definition delegated to their (city or national) Governments. The main question is: If non-geo use applications are equal in rights to for example city designated applications; doesn’t that in the current AGB mean that “big bucks” win (because it ends up in the last resort auction)? With “vultures” I do not address “brands” – but applicants that try shady tricks. Smth we haven’t really see in 2012 – but which we know exist in the .com space; and these entities will try to do their “dark magic” in the top level space as well. So the question at hand: other than outbidding traditionally financial potent brands (which usually have big marketing budgets) – how else could city constituents of a sizeable city defend their identity on top-level? If we keep the non-geo use clause in place even for sizeable cities; what else can safe city populations and their constituents? In your opinion: would a community objection against a brand application work? How would YOU counter argue? Would you simply rest your case? Brands vs. city seems to me heavily stacked towards the “brand”. Hence the request to protect “sizeable cities” as well as country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2). Brands would keep their non-geo use for most of the city names. And the few really large cities that enjoy the protection likely wouldn’t collide with any brand. If so: in my book a Million people community tops a brand. A question of “culture”. And that’s what the PDP actually is all about: defining a culture how applications are treated. Thanks, Alexander From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 16:56 To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; 'leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Thanks Alexander. There are a lot of heated words in this post – “attack”, “pollute”, “enemy”, “shame”, “vulture”,etc. I wonder if you might try again and distill the arguments you are trying to make down to their essence. I’m afraid whatever point you are trying to make is getting lost in the rhetoric. I’d truly like to understand. Also, if you are willing, is it possible to dispense with the false dichotomy of governments and brand owners? There are lots of non-brand owners who value speech free from governmental control and their voice needs to be heard here as well; otherwise, we are just having 2/3rds of the conversation we need to have. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 7:10 AM To: 'leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear WT, Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money. And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand. Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective: People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue). I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s). I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them. And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern. But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF. Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples: · A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”? o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them. · A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here! o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE! City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries? We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc). Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in? We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C496e4407e9814013a54208d6069d819d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703670894089481&sdata=KNyFMCdDyST77HjbCtarbD5m3vsVKPxb1uzCxwbwvF4%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C496e4407e9814013a54208d6069d819d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703670894099493&sdata=5h2icRjoBJFCjb60x%2BzUyMAwm0hlGlFoOuJXP0hCcXA%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C496e4407e9814013a54208d6069d819d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703670894099493&sdata=5h2icRjoBJFCjb60x%2BzUyMAwm0hlGlFoOuJXP0hCcXA%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Fr...>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffile%2Ffield-file-attach%2Fannex-1-&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C496e4407e9814013a54208d6069d819d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703670894119509&sdata=Djdv7Jt7mNqfRw3uPlJzSE9TjAc3JvfJymb2By1QrgE%3D&reserved=0> gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.o...>] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C496e4407e9814013a54208d6069d819d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703670894129513&sdata=PxS5sTOK29X3Sp98cV1FGfngE2bp4V6zUVXYEIJzRiI%3D&reserved=0>> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C496e4407e9814013a54208d6069d819d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703670894139529&sdata=ALASU%2Bi2CIn57QKIc1DKOriTlJt4kMArvu5pOPjmIko%3D&reserved=0>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C496e4407e9814013a54208d6069d819d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703670894139529&sdata=ALASU%2Bi2CIn57QKIc1DKOriTlJt4kMArvu5pOPjmIko%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C496e4407e9814013a54208d6069d819d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703670894149533&sdata=ciZ%2BpNuPQBcCqjejj%2FsyvrUcBiPlgEsgmN7XotLYOY0%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C496e4407e9814013a54208d6069d819d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703670894179562&sdata=%2B6I60UcO6QCU1hDStqKq6miPxjV0cbnnnJXW9wyZoyk%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Hello everyone I have been following this thread with great interest. I suggest we come back to first principles here. The three letter code for the Comoros is COM (https://laendercode.net/en/country/km <https://laendercode.net/en/country/km>). It is ridiculous to argue that “governments” have the “right” to a three letter ISO code based on the ISO 3166. That horse has well and truly bolted out of the stable many years ago. Who would argue that the world’s biggest and most popular gTLD should, in the reverse, be turned over to the Comoros Island’s Government because it happens to be “their” three letter country code. There are multiple three letter label TLDs that may (or may not!) be representations of a three letter “country” code and we must stop the false premise that “governments own” TLDs. They do not and cannot. And the same problem happens for two letter country codes. We cannot, on the one hand, argue that two letter “codes” should be reserved for “countries” when that situation is now very clearly a commercial proposition with no relevance at all to the “country” (.tv is the best example. following closely by .la (for Laos) which has not represented the country of Laos for many years and is the representation of a large US city. ). We cannot continue to be hypocritical and we cannot sustain arguments that privilege a collection of two letters that may (or may not) represent the interests of country code managers who may not be governments, who may be plain old individuals running resources given to them, in good faith, years ago and who may also, perhaps, represent “countries”. We are also in the live situation where many traditional country codes managers are now also the operators of gTLDs (for many good reasons about representing other communities in their regions OR because they realise that the business model of a straight ccTLD is not going to survive declining registration volumes, (amongst just two reasons). Many ccNSO members are now members of the ICANN Registry Stakeholders constituency because they have signed ICANN registry contracts. The distinction between countries, country codes, gTLDs, cultural communities and very real practical business models has disappeared completely. We need to face up to that and stop being so one-eyed about the intricacies of the implementation of TLDs that may serve multitudes of interests. Let’s be real here. There is no mechanism in law or in good sense to carve out “preventions”, “bannings”, “reservations”. Let us focus on the practice of an application process that may yield value to applicants to define and deliver interesting new ways of expressing language, culture, region. Let us also focus on improving the implementation of policy that minimises conflict and contest and then let the market determine how that works out for end users. Continuing the ugly rhetoric does us no favours and cruels the possibilities we have to propose legitimate policies that are respectful, nuanced and practical. There is no place in this debate for ongoing use of the words that Paul has called out. I cannot even bring myself to repeat them. They have no place in our discussions except to highlight a really nasty way of limiting the ongoing evolution of a global Internet. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 S: lizwilliams1963 Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
On 17 Aug 2018, at 2:55 pm, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
Thanks Alexander. There are a lot of heated words in this post – “attack”, “pollute”, “enemy”, “shame”, “vulture”,etc. I wonder if you might try again and distill the arguments you are trying to make down to their essence. I’m afraid whatever point you are trying to make is getting lost in the rhetoric. I’d truly like to understand. Also, if you are willing, is it possible to dispense with the false dichotomy of governments and brand owners? There are lots of non-brand owners who value speech free from governmental control and their voice needs to be heard here as well; otherwise, we are just having 2/3rds of the conversation we need to have.
Best, Paul
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 7:10 AM To: 'leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear WT,
Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money.
And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand.
Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective:
People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue).
I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s).
I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them.
And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern.
But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF.
Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples: · A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”? o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them. · A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here! o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE!
City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries?
We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc).
Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in?
We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention.
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 Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia>>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss .
Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote:
That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list.
It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...>
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk <mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Hi Mike
Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’.
Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies.
If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there.
I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses.
Best wishes Nick
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...>
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon
-------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...>
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Fr...>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1- <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann....> gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.o...>] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21b471b07fc94a44416a08d6043a7601%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701046466336012&sdata=AKpuwGWyTdhX7IFhiIPAkWirSCjkvTC7WtY%2BknMlGwo%3D&reserved=0>> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
_______________________________________________ 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>
Dear All, I think that governments do not inherently own anything; however, I strongly believe there are intangible values, associations, sovereignty and reputations attached to any name, especially a country name. Moreover, I strongly disagree with Liz’s argument that: ¨The distinction between countries, country codes, gTLDs, cultural communities and very real practical business models has disappeared completely.¨ There are clear distinctions among TLDs depending on the use, the administration and mission of the organization. Even though ccTLDs are all managed differently, in most cases (.tv being a clear exception) are not-for-profit organizations that work to improve their local Internet ecosystems, give back to their country and represent their country’s name in the best possible way. It is a huge responsibility to represent a country’s name. We cannot take this lightly and act like all TLDs are the same. I understand the importance of freedom of speech and open markets, but I also understand the sensitive associated to a country’s name. I my opinion there is no denying it. I believe we should not include 3 letter country names in this coming round. There is no clear consensus how we should use a country’s name in this group. Best, Rosalía [cid:B190111C-4AAD-456E-809F-8934B6CA8935] On Aug 17, 2018, at 9:26 AM, Liz Williams via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> wrote: The distinction between countries, country codes, gTLDs, cultural communities and very real practical business models has disappeared completely.
Hello everyone I appreciated Rosalie’s perspective especially around the discussion of “the distinction between countries, country codes, gTLDs, cultural communities and very real practical business models has disappeared completely.¨ During the 2012 round, I supported the application for numerous three letter TLDs and for many other permutations of IDNs and ASCII script. In my experience, I stand behind my statement that the distinctions have blurred completely. I also stand by my experience of supporting country codes to expand their business opportunities which either forced them or encouraged them to think more broadly about the survival of their business by running TLDs that means they are now ICANN contracted parties. I am not arguing that all TLDs are the same. They are not nor should they be as it is a key tenet of valuable competitive service provision for registrants that they find products which suit their needs. I am also not arguing that a country’s name ought not be protected. That is well settled by consensus positions in this group and elsewhere. We cannot put the "three letter code" genie back in the bottle. It has been out for many years and we now need to recognise, for any upcoming round, how best we can develop policy which is clear for applicants, for evaluators and for end users. That is valuable work to do which is futuristic and open. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 S: lizwilliams1963 Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
On 17 Aug 2018, at 4:44 pm, Rosalía Morales <rosalia.morales@nic.cr> wrote:
Dear All,
I think that governments do not inherently own anything; however, I strongly believe there are intangible values, associations, sovereignty and reputations attached to any name, especially a country name.
Moreover, I strongly disagree with Liz’s argument that: ¨The distinction between countries, country codes, gTLDs, cultural communities and very real practical business models has disappeared completely.¨
There are clear distinctions among TLDs depending on the use, the administration and mission of the organization. Even though ccTLDs are all managed differently, in most cases (.tv being a clear exception) are not-for-profit organizations that work to improve their local Internet ecosystems, give back to their country and represent their country’s name in the best possible way.
It is a huge responsibility to represent a country’s name. We cannot take this lightly and act like all TLDs are the same. I understand the importance of freedom of speech and open markets, but I also understand the sensitive associated to a country’s name. I my opinion there is no denying it.
I believe we should not include 3 letter country names in this coming round. There is no clear consensus how we should use a country’s name in this group.
Best, Rosalía <Rosalia-Morales.png>
On Aug 17, 2018, at 9:26 AM, Liz Williams via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> wrote:
The distinction between countries, country codes, gTLDs, cultural communities and very real practical business models has disappeared completely.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear All I strongly disagree with argument launched in this e- mail The three letter codes are also being used in many UN agency to designate the country symbols through which the orbital/ spectrum resources are assigned to these countries. It is quite clear that no one has any ownership on these codes but they are tard and continue to be used in future based on certain rules and NOT on commercial motivations Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Aug 2018, at 18:13, Liz Williams via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> wrote:
Hello everyone
I appreciated Rosalie’s perspective especially around the discussion of “the distinction between countries, country codes, gTLDs, cultural communities and very real practical business models has disappeared completely.¨ During the 2012 round, I supported the application for numerous three letter TLDs and for many other permutations of IDNs and ASCII script. In my experience, I stand behind my statement that the distinctions have blurred completely. I also stand by my experience of supporting country codes to expand their business opportunities which either forced them or encouraged them to think more broadly about the survival of their business by running TLDs that means they are now ICANN contracted parties.
I am not arguing that all TLDs are the same. They are not nor should they be as it is a key tenet of valuable competitive service provision for registrants that they find products which suit their needs. I am also not arguing that a country’s name ought not be protected. That is well settled by consensus positions in this group and elsewhere.
We cannot put the "three letter code" genie back in the bottle. It has been out for many years and we now need to recognise, for any upcoming round, how best we can develop policy which is clear for applicants, for evaluators and for end users. That is valuable work to do which is futuristic and open.
Liz
…. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 S: lizwilliams1963
Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
On 17 Aug 2018, at 4:44 pm, Rosalía Morales <rosalia.morales@nic.cr> wrote:
Dear All,
I think that governments do not inherently own anything; however, I strongly believe there are intangible values, associations, sovereignty and reputations attached to any name, especially a country name.
Moreover, I strongly disagree with Liz’s argument that: ¨The distinction between countries, country codes, gTLDs, cultural communities and very real practical business models has disappeared completely.¨
There are clear distinctions among TLDs depending on the use, the administration and mission of the organization. Even though ccTLDs are all managed differently, in most cases (.tv being a clear exception) are not-for-profit organizations that work to improve their local Internet ecosystems, give back to their country and represent their country’s name in the best possible way.
It is a huge responsibility to represent a country’s name. We cannot take this lightly and act like all TLDs are the same. I understand the importance of freedom of speech and open markets, but I also understand the sensitive associated to a country’s name. I my opinion there is no denying it.
I believe we should not include 3 letter country names in this coming round. There is no clear consensus how we should use a country’s name in this group.
Best, Rosalía <Rosalia-Morales.png>
On Aug 17, 2018, at 9:26 AM, Liz Williams via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> wrote:
The distinction between countries, country codes, gTLDs, cultural communities and very real practical business models has disappeared completely.
_______________________________________________ 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
Good afternoon: The length and complexity of the current Threads are such that a reasonably prompt comprehensive reply would be impossible, so I shall reply severally in the next few days, to the main points. Regarding ISO 3166: This in an International Standard. Usually, responsible entities, both public and private respect International standards (even if they are not mandated in law). The fact that in his wisdom, Jon Postel chose to use the 2 letter codes for ccTLDs at that time, does not detract from the validity of the rest of the 3166 Standard. The fact that a number of ISO 3 letter codes correspond to generic (EN/ASCII) words is immaterial. No one has ever said that ALL generic words (in how many languages and scripts?) are fair game for expropriation as gTLDs. In any event, it is absolutely essential that these country-related codes are used by and for and in the corresponding jurisdictions. The idea that there may be extraterritorial 'registry families' of ISO three letter codes, whether for geo- or non-geo purposes, will not fly. In short, should some of us in WT5 (and it seems that there are some) wish to change the designation of ISO codes, let us go to Geneva and the 3166 maintenance agency and ask them, not to ICANN. Regarding the Comores/.com argument, may I say that there are several decisions of the National Science Foundation (US NSF) from the 1980's with which I would have demurred, if asked. The Internet has got used to living with 'mistakes' from the past. But that is no argument for extending bad precedents to the whole of the DNS in the future. NO. Let us bear in mind that the policies and rules that shall be applied in the next 'rounds' would have to apply globally and should be immunised from the vagaries of the accumulated (EN/ASCII) decisions of the past. Regards Christopher Wilkinson
El 18 de agosto de 2018 a las 18:27 Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> escribió:
Dear All I strongly disagree with argument launched in this e- mail The three letter codes are also being used in many UN agency to designate the country symbols through which the orbital/ spectrum resources are assigned to these countries. It is quite clear that no one has any ownership on these codes but they are tard and continue to be used in future based on certain rules and NOT on commercial motivations Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Aug 2018, at 18:13, Liz Williams via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org > wrote:
> > Hello everyone
I appreciated Rosalie’s perspective especially around the discussion of “the distinction between countries, country codes, gTLDs, cultural communities and very real practical business models has disappeared completely.¨ During the 2012 round, I supported the application for numerous three letter TLDs and for many other permutations of IDNs and ASCII script. In my experience, I stand behind my statement that the distinctions have blurred completely. I also stand by my experience of supporting country codes to expand their business opportunities which either forced them or encouraged them to think more broadly about the survival of their business by running TLDs that means they are now ICANN contracted parties.
I am not arguing that all TLDs are the same. They are not nor should they be as it is a key tenet of valuable competitive service provision for registrants that they find products which suit their needs. I am also not arguing that a country’s name ought not be protected. That is well settled by consensus positions in this group and elsewhere.
We cannot put the "three letter code" genie back in the bottle. It has been out for many years and we now need to recognise, for any upcoming round, how best we can develop policy which is clear for applicants, for evaluators and for end users. That is valuable work to do which is futuristic and open.
Liz
…. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 S: lizwilliams1963
Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
> > > On 17 Aug 2018, at 4:44 pm, Rosalía Morales <rosalia.morales@nic.cr mailto:rosalia.morales@nic.cr > wrote:
Dear All,
I think that governments do not inherently own anything; however, I strongly believe there are intangible values, associations, sovereignty and reputations attached to any name, especially a country name.
Moreover, I strongly disagree with Liz’s argument that: ¨The distinction between countries, country codes, gTLDs, cultural communities and very real practical business models has disappeared completely.¨
There are clear distinctions among TLDs depending on the use, the administration and mission of the organization. Even though ccTLDs are all managed differently, in most cases (.tv being a clear exception) are not-for-profit organizations that work to improve their local Internet ecosystems, give back to their country and represent their country’s name in the best possible way.
It is a huge responsibility to represent a country’s name. We cannot take this lightly and act like all TLDs are the same. I understand the importance of freedom of speech and open markets, but I also understand the sensitive associated to a country’s name. I my opinion there is no denying it.
I believe we should not include 3 letter country names in this coming round. There is no clear consensus how we should use a country’s name in this group.
Best, Rosalía <Rosalia-Morales.png>
> > > > On Aug 17, 2018, at 9:26 AM, Liz Williams via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org > wrote:
The distinction between countries, country codes, gTLDs, cultural communities and very real practical business models has disappeared completely.
> > >
_______________________________________________ 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
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
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
>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Absolutely agree with you here Rosalia. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Rosalía Morales Sent: 17 August 2018 16:44 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear All, I think that governments do not inherently own anything; however, I strongly believe there are intangible values, associations, sovereignty and reputations attached to any name, especially a country name. Moreover, I strongly disagree with Liz’s argument that: ¨The distinction between countries, country codes, gTLDs, cultural communities and very real practical business models has disappeared completely.¨ There are clear distinctions among TLDs depending on the use, the administration and mission of the organization. Even though ccTLDs are all managed differently, in most cases (.tv being a clear exception) are not-for-profit organizations that work to improve their local Internet ecosystems, give back to their country and represent their country’s name in the best possible way. It is a huge responsibility to represent a country’s name. We cannot take this lightly and act like all TLDs are the same. I understand the importance of freedom of speech and open markets, but I also understand the sensitive associated to a country’s name. I my opinion there is no denying it. I believe we should not include 3 letter country names in this coming round. There is no clear consensus how we should use a country’s name in this group. Best, Rosalía [cid:image001.png@01D4364F.0C86E3B0] On Aug 17, 2018, at 9:26 AM, Liz Williams via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> wrote: The distinction between countries, country codes, gTLDs, cultural communities and very real practical business models has disappeared completely.
All: This is a great and very granular conversation. I truly encourage it. I understand and appreciate the equities and complexities on both sides (actually maybe there’s more than two sides to the issue!) and I feel quite lucky to be surrounded by such a great group of professionals in this WT. Bottom-up multistakeholder consensual processes are evidently not easy tasks. The amount of good faith and hard work it takes to move half an inch in any direction or to even not move in any direction at all is truly great. And I do sense and see that good faith in this WT. We will definitely be moving along very soon, yet to keep the conversation going just for now (and for later food for thought) -and the conversation in itself is probably the most important value here-, allow me to pose a hypothetical (like I did in the past weeks with my “.apache” non-AGB geoname question): -Right now, as you all know, the default standing status of 3-Letter country/territory codes is that they are “currently unavailable”. Compared to no movement at all in this topic, what do you opine if only Countries & Territories could be the delegatees for the 3-Letter country-territory code normally associated with said Country or Territory (e.g. as used in the Olympic Games) and said TLD carried with it agreed upon public interest obligations and conditions usually associated with ccTLDs (or perhaps stronger yet to be determined conditions and obligations)?- Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 17, 2018, at 12:23 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> wrote:
Absolutely agree with you here Rosalia.
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Rosalía Morales Sent: 17 August 2018 16:44 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear All,
I think that governments do not inherently own anything; however, I strongly believe there are intangible values, associations, sovereignty and reputations attached to any name, especially a country name.
Moreover, I strongly disagree with Liz’s argument that: ¨The distinction between countries, country codes, gTLDs, cultural communities and very real practical business models has disappeared completely.¨
There are clear distinctions among TLDs depending on the use, the administration and mission of the organization. Even though ccTLDs are all managed differently, in most cases (.tv being a clear exception) are not-for-profit organizations that work to improve their local Internet ecosystems, give back to their country and represent their country’s name in the best possible way.
It is a huge responsibility to represent a country’s name. We cannot take this lightly and act like all TLDs are the same. I understand the importance of freedom of speech and open markets, but I also understand the sensitive associated to a country’s name. I my opinion there is no denying it.
I believe we should not include 3 letter country names in this coming round. There is no clear consensus how we should use a country’s name in this group.
Best, Rosalía <image001.png>
On Aug 17, 2018, at 9:26 AM, Liz Williams via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> wrote:
The distinction between countries, country codes, gTLDs, cultural communities and very real practical business models has disappeared completely.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants. It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest. I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world. Marita On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear WT,
Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money.
And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand.
Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective:
People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue).
I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s).
I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them.
And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern.
But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF.
*Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity*. Examples:
·A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”?
oRight now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them.
·A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here!
oAs per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE!
City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries?
We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc).
Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in?
We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention.
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Arasteh *Sent:* Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Cc:* Edmon <edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear All
Yes they are valuable for those countries too
There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes
Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution
Regards
Kavouss .
Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote:
That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list.
It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk <mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote:
Hi Mike
Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’.
Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies.
If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there.
I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses.
Best wishes
Nick
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* 10 August 2018 03:35 *To:* Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> *Cc:* leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."
Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> wrote:
IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon
-------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
> Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos, > > I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check > ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt <http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt>) cemented the one and only real differentiator > in the DNS: > That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be > deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two > character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs. > > If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) > BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character > gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway. > > The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be > uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs). > > Thanks, > > Alexander > > > > Sent from my Samsung device > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> > Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) > To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call > on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. > > Hi Carlos > > Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some > 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically > be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had > from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs? > > Kind regards, > Annebeth > > > Annebeth B Lange > Special Adviser International Policy > UNINETT Norid AS > Phone: +47 959 11 559 > Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> > > > > 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < > carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>: > > My comments to today's call: > > 1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process > should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested > parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and > territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a > forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if > it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW > suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How > about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, > such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future > countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL > two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if > it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential > combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I > can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could > tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to > move forward. > > 2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo > names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear > rationale is added to the recommendation > > > 3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion > has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and > other social elements, ,like Apache Nation > > > Best regards > > > > --- > Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez > carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> > +506 8837 7176 > Aparatado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > > > El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió: > > Dear Work Track members, > > > > Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations > shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes > clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more > substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call. > > > > Kind regards, > > Emily > > > > *From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on > behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> > *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 > *To: *"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>> > *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call > on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. > > > > Dear Work Track members, > > > > Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 > August at 13:00 UTC: > > > > 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates > 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan > 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names > 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms > 5. AOB > > > > On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed > at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of > September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to > ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work > of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for > delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached. > > > > As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series > of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial > Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of > recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft > recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work > Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft > recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will > officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's > call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be > followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: > https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1- > gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org>] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> > . > > > > If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an > apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > WT5 Co-Leads > > Annebeth Lange > > Javier Rua > > Olga Cavalli > > Martin Sutton > > > > > > > > > > > > The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely > for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged > information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not > the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message > has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by > reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are > not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, > dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is > strictly prohibited. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > <Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf> > > <Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Thanks Marita. How is it not practical for cities to pass laws? They pass laws all the time on issues that are important to them. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 12:54 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants. It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest. I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world. Marita On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear WT, Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money. And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand. Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective: People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue). I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s). I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them. And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern. But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF. Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples: · A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”? o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them. · A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here! o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE! City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries? We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc). Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in? We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia><mailto:edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21574dff09ad440bf3fe08d6046a7052%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701252531324237&sdata=w5rzt6NGILsV5npsz7cKC8CF91r5%2FbiAwiRpsSVIT4M%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21574dff09ad440bf3fe08d6046a7052%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701252531324237&sdata=w5rzt6NGILsV5npsz7cKC8CF91r5%2FbiAwiRpsSVIT4M%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21574dff09ad440bf3fe08d6046a7052%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701252531324237&sdata=w5rzt6NGILsV5npsz7cKC8CF91r5%2FbiAwiRpsSVIT4M%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Fr...>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffile%2Ffield-file-attach%2Fannex-1-&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21574dff09ad440bf3fe08d6046a7052%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701252531324237&sdata=3gta36xAYRl30A%2BujoVRVBqmZ5kWBAH1Nt8zIg%2F9iiY%3D&reserved=0> gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.o...>] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21574dff09ad440bf3fe08d6046a7052%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701252531324237&sdata=VLJbQgi2IDqKODRfExLR%2BRYAwFb%2FioGm6ELBVsIcDSk%3D&reserved=0>> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21574dff09ad440bf3fe08d6046a7052%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701252531324237&sdata=zSwszsN8Nfwed%2B5naoaYj3NPKr0BjG0ZhMFyJoM4h8Y%3D&reserved=0>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21574dff09ad440bf3fe08d6046a7052%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701252531324237&sdata=zSwszsN8Nfwed%2B5naoaYj3NPKr0BjG0ZhMFyJoM4h8Y%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21574dff09ad440bf3fe08d6046a7052%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701252531324237&sdata=zSwszsN8Nfwed%2B5naoaYj3NPKr0BjG0ZhMFyJoM4h8Y%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21574dff09ad440bf3fe08d6046a7052%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701252531324237&sdata=zSwszsN8Nfwed%2B5naoaYj3NPKr0BjG0ZhMFyJoM4h8Y%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21574dff09ad440bf3fe08d6046a7052%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701252531480335&sdata=GpXz8zrj51Pi8W20Zb%2BfHjo4FRx5Yge%2BnCmfVcReN0A%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Well, I was thinking that it would have be very proactive to be fair. Someone would have to contact each city possibly implicated and explain the situation. Marita On 8/17/2018 9:24 PM, McGrady, Paul D. wrote:
Thanks Marita.
How is it not practical for cities to pass laws? They pass laws all the time on issues that are important to them.
Best,
Paul
*From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Marita Moll *Sent:* Friday, August 17, 2018 12:54 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants.
It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest.
I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world.
Marita
On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear WT,
Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money.
And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand.
Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective:
People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue).
I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s).
I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them.
And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern.
But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF.
*Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity*. Examples:
·A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”?
oRight now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them.
·A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here!
oAs per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE!
City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries?
We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc).
Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in?
We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention.
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Arasteh *Sent:* Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Cc:* Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> <mailto:edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear All
Yes they are valuable for those countries too
There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes
Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution
Regards
Kavouss .
Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote:
That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list.
It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...>
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk <mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote:
Hi Mike
Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’.
Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies.
If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there.
I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses.
Best wishes
Nick
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* 10 August 2018 03:35 *To:* Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> *Cc:* leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."
Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...>
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> wrote:
IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon
-------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...>
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
> Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos, > > I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check > ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Fr...>) cemented the one and only real differentiator > in the DNS: > That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be > deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two > character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs. > > If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) > BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character > gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway. > > The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be > uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs). > > Thanks, > > Alexander > > > > Sent from my Samsung device > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> > Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) > To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call > on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. > > Hi Carlos > > Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some > 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically > be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had > from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs? > > Kind regards, > Annebeth > > > Annebeth B Lange > Special Adviser International Policy > UNINETT Norid AS > Phone: +47 959 11 559 > Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> > > > > 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < > carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>: > > My comments to today's call: > > 1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process > should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested > parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and > territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a > forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if > it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW > suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How > about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, > such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future > countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL > two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if > it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential > combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I > can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could > tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to > move forward. > > 2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo > names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear > rationale is added to the recommendation > > > 3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion > has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and > other social elements, ,like Apache Nation > > > Best regards > > > > --- > Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez > carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> > +506 8837 7176 > Aparatado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > > > El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió: > > Dear Work Track members, > > > > Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations > shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes > clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more > substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call. > > > > Kind regards, > > Emily > > > > *From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on > behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> > *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 > *To: *"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>> > *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call > on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. > > > > Dear Work Track members, > > > > Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 > August at 13:00 UTC: > > > > 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates > 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan > 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names > 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms > 5. AOB > > > > On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed > at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of > September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to > ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work > of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for > delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached. > > > > As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series > of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial > Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of > recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft > recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work > Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft > recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will > officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's > call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be > followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: > https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1- <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann....> > gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.o...>] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21574dff09ad440bf3fe08d6046a7052%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701252531324237&sdata=VLJbQgi2IDqKODRfExLR%2BRYAwFb%2FioGm6ELBVsIcDSk%3D&reserved=0>> > . > > > > If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an > apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > WT5 Co-Leads > > Annebeth Lange > > Javier Rua > > Olga Cavalli > > Martin Sutton > > > > > > > > > > > > The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely > for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged > information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not > the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message > has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by > reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are > not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, > dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is > strictly prohibited. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> > > <Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf> > > <Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx> > > _______________________________________________ > 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> >
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________
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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Thanks Marita. But if no concerned citizens contact their city and the city doesn’t act, why would that default to ICANN? Surely, ICANN can’t pass all the laws that some of its participants wished cities passed? We’d be here forever… Best, Paul From: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 2:29 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Well, I was thinking that it would have be very proactive to be fair. Someone would have to contact each city possibly implicated and explain the situation. Marita On 8/17/2018 9:24 PM, McGrady, Paul D. wrote: Thanks Marita. How is it not practical for cities to pass laws? They pass laws all the time on issues that are important to them. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 12:54 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants. It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest. I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world. Marita On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear WT, Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money. And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand. Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective: People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue). I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s). I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them. And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern. But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF. Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples: · A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”? o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them. · A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here! o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE! City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries? We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc). Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in? We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia><mailto:edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7CPMcGrady%40winston.com%7Ccf156e5f68c94036856b08d60477bcfe%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701309671772786&sdata=sct9Ps92UrfzaiE9NThA1aYMXA1bWE3oExG8H3xjrzg%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7CPMcGrady%40winston.com%7Ccf156e5f68c94036856b08d60477bcfe%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701309671782800&sdata=2sH2oEyZLC8qwfavIk%2B6%2B7ni%2BxGOISv6nyAaxFkjnZo%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7CPMcGrady%40winston.com%7Ccf156e5f68c94036856b08d60477bcfe%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701309671792808&sdata=7jPYViradPTGpbW43xTRI2NHPawuFdzwyUkdD3JH0cw%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Fr...>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffile%2Ffield-file-attach%2Fannex-1-&data=02%7C01%7CPMcGrady%40winston.com%7Ccf156e5f68c94036856b08d60477bcfe%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701309671812817&sdata=mjQBPHFZ79axcM1Nad9v2qCl3xIQLA9Kg3D0vKmO6RE%3D&reserved=0> gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.o...>] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7CPMcGrady%40winston.com%7Ccf156e5f68c94036856b08d60477bcfe%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701309671832833&sdata=coSDl77u1TxXpOJdRgj4oDQRpXUGibdlv6YMXRQeFjw%3D&reserved=0>> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7CPMcGrady%40winston.com%7Ccf156e5f68c94036856b08d60477bcfe%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701309671842841&sdata=%2FC8voR%2FCEmvArazRDb9HwVs%2BbNHT8%2Fi%2FK1LsUbS4T%2B0%3D&reserved=0>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7CPMcGrady%40winston.com%7Ccf156e5f68c94036856b08d60477bcfe%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701309671852854&sdata=foZc%2B7PYxIA1MXmpdcbqnqguY9VUpJdaBkXqbzJUDFE%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7CPMcGrady%40winston.com%7Ccf156e5f68c94036856b08d60477bcfe%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701309671862856&sdata=tEzf3dOciB7lzA8DtEzwqULDdOT02igO2Dh9YDUoPHI%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7CPMcGrady%40winston.com%7Ccf156e5f68c94036856b08d60477bcfe%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701309671872864&sdata=lDZiRZ6imB1goT87SOiyjticmJwY0tXEKOsQabPWrSo%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7CPMcGrady%40winston.com%7Ccf156e5f68c94036856b08d60477bcfe%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636701309671882871&sdata=n4qJrZSJGu33LcFy41xvcDGTeZ4X9pGSZz20g6iH%2BT0%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Paul, You are suggesting that ICANN forces “cities” to “pass laws” in order to defend their city name. Let’s look at this in the U.S.`(and I am no lawyer, so forgive if this isn’t 100% accurate): What law do you talk about? Federal? State? Local? Do you REALLY assume that a city constituent based non-profit applicant waltzes into K-Street to get lobbying done for a bill on the hill (not to mention that it would probably cost a few Million USD). Or you pass a state law? Or rather dozens of state laws? Or a local ordinance? And once you have such ordinance in Chicago in place (which I think is rather unrealistic – because they won’t ever do it)? Then what? The other applicant sits for example in DE, ICANN sits in CA. How would such Chicago local ordinance help anybody? Are you suggesting that ICANN should be bound to all local ordinances in the world? Plus: Cities are usually NOT the applicant entities. But you see, this is PRECISELY why we need to create policy on ICANN level. In most countries and in most cities nobody KNOWS what we are doing. Nobody ASSUMES that a certain city will be applied for. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 10:25 PM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Thanks Marita. How is it not practical for cities to pass laws? They pass laws all the time on issues that are important to them. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 12:54 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants. It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest. I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world. Marita On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear WT, Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money. And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand. Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective: People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue). I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s). I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them. And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern. But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF. Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples: * A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”? o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them. * A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here! o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE! City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries? We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc). Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in? We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: Edmon <mailto:edmon@dot.asia> <edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> > wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk <mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> > wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia> > Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia> > wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> > Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > 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> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Fr...> ) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> > Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> >:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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> > *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1- <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann....> gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.o...> ] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> .
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> _____ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
I object to calling this feature a “loophole.” That is both prejudicial and incorrect as well. What we have is a reasonable limit on the Consent right that was given to non-capitol cities in the prior round.
From an end-user perspective, there is no presumption that a geo-use is superior to any other possible use of a given string.
From a city perspective, nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a city to apply for a string related to their city name. We are just not reserving numerous possibilities exclusively for their choice when or if they look into the idea of a TLD. And we are not reserving “inventory” for private businesses that consult in the geo-name space. That would truly be outside our remit.
Best regards, Greg On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants.
It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest.
I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world.
Marita
On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear WT,
Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money.
And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand.
Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective:
People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue).
I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s).
I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them.
And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern.
But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF.
*Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity*. Examples:
· A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”?
o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them.
· A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here!
o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE!
City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries?
We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc).
Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in?
We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention.
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Arasteh *Sent:* Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> <mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Cc:* Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> <edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear All
Yes they are valuable for those countries too
There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes
Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution
Regards
Kavouss .
Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list.
It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith < Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> wrote:
Hi Mike
Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’.
Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies.
If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there.
I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses.
Best wishes
Nick
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* 10 August 2018 03:35 *To:* Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> *Cc:* leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."
Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> wrote:
IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon
-------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-
gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org] < https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...
.
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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 listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://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
Sorry Greg, no intention to be prejudicial. I am not arguing that the non-geo use clause be closed entirely. I am suggesting that it not be available in the case of very large cities. If we are talking about cities of 1M people, that's about 500-600 cities, defined by an authoritative list we agree on. A good number will already be reserved as capital cities. The word inventory makes it sound huge, like thousands of names are involved. That's not the case. It is very limited. I don't see that as an unreasonable compromise. Marita On 8/20/2018 1:20 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
I object to calling this feature a “loophole.” That is both prejudicial and incorrect as well. What we have is a reasonable limit on the Consent right that was given to non-capitol cities in the prior round.
From an end-user perspective, there is no presumption that a geo-use is superior to any other possible use of a given string.
From a city perspective, nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a city to apply for a string related to their city name. We are just not reserving numerous possibilities exclusively for their choice when or if they look into the idea of a TLD. And we are not reserving “inventory” for private businesses that consult in the geo-name space. That would truly be outside our remit.
Best regards,
Greg
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote:
I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants.
It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest.
I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world.
Marita
On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear WT,
Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money.
And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand.
Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective:
People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue).
I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s).
I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them.
And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern.
But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF.
*Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity*. Examples:
·A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”?
oRight now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them.
·A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here!
oAs per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE!
City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries?
We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc).
Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in?
We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention.
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Arasteh *Sent:* Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Cc:* Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> <mailto:edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear All
Yes they are valuable for those countries too
There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes
Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution
Regards
Kavouss .
Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote:
That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list.
It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk <mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote:
Hi Mike
Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’.
Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies.
If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there.
I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses.
Best wishes
Nick
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* 10 August 2018 03:35 *To:* Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> *Cc:* leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."
Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> wrote:
IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon
-------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
> Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos, > > I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check > ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt <http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt>) cemented the one and only real differentiator > in the DNS: > That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be > deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two > character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs. > > If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) > BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character > gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway. > > The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be > uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs). > > Thanks, > > Alexander > > > > Sent from my Samsung device > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> > Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) > To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call > on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. > > Hi Carlos > > Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some > 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically > be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had > from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs? > > Kind regards, > Annebeth > > > Annebeth B Lange > Special Adviser International Policy > UNINETT Norid AS > Phone: +47 959 11 559 > Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> > > > > 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < > carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>: > > My comments to today's call: > > 1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process > should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested > parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and > territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a > forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if > it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW > suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How > about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, > such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future > countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL > two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if > it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential > combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I > can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could > tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to > move forward. > > 2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo > names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear > rationale is added to the recommendation > > > 3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion > has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and > other social elements, ,like Apache Nation > > > Best regards > > > > --- > Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez > carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> > +506 8837 7176 > Aparatado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > > > El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió: > > Dear Work Track members, > > > > Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations > shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes > clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more > substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call. > > > > Kind regards, > > Emily > > > > *From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on > behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> > *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 > *To: *"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>> > *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call > on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. > > > > Dear Work Track members, > > > > Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 > August at 13:00 UTC: > > > > 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates > 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan > 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names > 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms > 5. AOB > > > > On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed > at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of > September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to > ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work > of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for > delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached. > > > > As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series > of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial > Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of > recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft > recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work > Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft > recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will > officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's > call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be > followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: > https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1- > gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org>] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> > . > > > > If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an > apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > WT5 Co-Leads > > Annebeth Lange > > Javier Rua > > Olga Cavalli > > Martin Sutton > > > > > > > > > > > > The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely > for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged > information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not > the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message > has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by > reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are > not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, > dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is > strictly prohibited. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > <Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf> > > <Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
To add to this thought: We are grossly INCONSISTENT with the protection levels that we are establishing. Right now we claim a country can NOT be allowed to support an application for their 3-letter code or country name within the gNSO policy framework – because we need to protect the country from “harm”. We are BANNING all these strings completely! But sizeable cities: anything goes, and thanks to the non-geo use provision: no protections whatsoever! Now let’s compare countries and cities (and obviously I am doing this since 2006 A LOT – when I lobbied with Dirk for .berlin to come into existence): A city like Berlin has 3.5 Million people in the city limits, and roughly 5.5 Million in the metro area. Compared to countries: * 50% of all countries are smaller than the Berlin metro area * Still over 100 countries are smaller than Berlin within its city limits * 63 countries (more than 25%) have populations under 1 Million people! So indeed: a Million inhabitant city is just population-wise at least as important and impacting as more than a quarter of all countries. BUT: if you look at a city like Berlin (or Denver, Dallas, Chicago): we aren’t just comparing population size! We are talking about domain name spaces, gTLDs! In that respect we ought to factor in the Internet penetration, the GDP and number of businesses (because they need domains – and Internet users will utilize these domains to find the businesses), cultural and political importance, etc. If you factor all this in, and compare Berlin to Belarus (a country I truly admire, beautiful capital, our southern neighbor) or Azerbaijan (each of both have 10 million people): Berlin uses WAY MORE domain names than these both. So suddenly a Million people city in an industrialized nation probably plays in the top 60% of countries – domain name usage wise. I am wrapping my head around cities and gTLDs for probably way too long (14 years). But most of the times I observe that most people just don’t understand how HYPER IMPORTANT cities are as an organizational entity in the personal and business life of people. We are totally overprotecting country-geo-entities; but seemingly have no problem whatsoever that via the “non-geo use” loophole everybody and their greed grandma could snag up city based gTLDs en masse. I think we either scrap the non-geo use provision altogether (which I personally do NOT support at all); or we at least elevate SIZEABLE cities to the same protection level as country subdivisions (these are by the way are often quite unknown, un-impacting and typically relatively small population-wise. Inconsistent.) And as the brand-cloud seemingly today admitted: there are ZERO “curative” rights in the case of a city-supported application vs. a brand application. It’s “big bucks win”. I am consulting companies in regard to domain acquisition since 21 years now (started in 1997) – and let me tell you: contrary to the picture painted here in another message; most of the larger brands have no problems to slap several Million Dollars on a domain asset; if they really want it. No chance for a city constituent, non-profit public benefit entity to survive at all. But my bigger concern are VC capital infused portfolio applicants who are simply applying for dozens of city names – declaring non-geo use. Obviously city supported applications do currently NOT “top” non-geo use applications; and what then? They city supported applicant is likely non-profit AND had likely to make concessions to the city. Their business plan is much weaker – as they strive to be public-benefit and all. How can they win an auction against VC funded applicants? The city gTLD process as we have set it up is HEAVELY stacked against the type of applicant that we always wanted to see: A good actor, public benefit, community supported, community owned & funded, non-profit, etc. Unfair, not in the interest of the Internet user or the city constituents, not in sync with ICANN’s mandate. All we are asking for is to require city support for city name applications if the city is really BIG (in comparison to for example countries). And if that cut-off size were a Million people. VC money will likely not go for cities with less than a Million people – the registrar channel won’t sell enough domains to sustain the application. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 9:10 AM Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Sorry Greg, no intention to be prejudicial. I am not arguing that the non-geo use clause be closed entirely. I am suggesting that it not be available in the case of very large cities. If we are talking about cities of 1M people, that's about 500-600 cities, defined by an authoritative list we agree on. A good number will already be reserved as capital cities. The word inventory makes it sound huge, like thousands of names are involved. That's not the case. It is very limited. I don't see that as an unreasonable compromise. Marita On 8/20/2018 1:20 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: I object to calling this feature a “loophole.” That is both prejudicial and incorrect as well. What we have is a reasonable limit on the Consent right that was given to non-capitol cities in the prior round.
From an end-user perspective, there is no presumption that a geo-use is superior to any other possible use of a given string.
From a city perspective, nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a city to apply for a string related to their city name. We are just not reserving numerous possibilities exclusively for their choice when or if they look into the idea of a TLD. And we are not reserving “inventory” for private businesses that consult in the geo-name space. That would truly be outside our remit.
Best regards, Greg On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> > wrote: I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants. It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest. I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world. Marita On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear WT, Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money. And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand. Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective: People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue). I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s). I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them. And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern. But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF. Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples: * A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”? o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them. * A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here! o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE! City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries? We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc). Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in? We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: Edmon <mailto:edmon@dot.asia> <edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> > wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk <mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> > wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia> > Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia> > wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> > Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > 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> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt <http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt> ) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> > Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> >:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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> > *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1- gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org> ] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> &d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> .
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks Alexander. Your email shows why a one-ICANN-size does not fit all. I’m not sure what free speech is, or is not, like in Berlin. None of the other three examples you use (assuming you are referring to the US cities of Denver, Dallas and Chicago) would be permitted under the First Amenment to restrain speech by insisting no one else could apply for .Denver, .Dallas, or .Chicago (and culturally, even if it was permitted, the people of Dallas certainly, and perhaps even the people of Denver, would never go for such a restriction). So while Berlin may fall squarely into the paradigm you would like ICANN to adopt, the other 75% of your examples do not. Likewise, having ICANN start down the path of free speech curtailment in large city names does lead to the problem of ICANN getting involved in the “who deserves it” business – your very poignant example of Berlin v Belarus v Azerbaijan shows just how messy that can be. The compromise struck in the last round – protecting capital cities – was a major concession by the free speech crowd within ICANN. As your email makes clear, expanding that concession to even more cities will be incredibly complex and will inevitably curtail speech that otherwise would be granted to some if ICANN didn’t go down this path. I think it is time for us to come to grips that ICANN simply can’t be a supranational legislator. Please keep in mind that for those who want to work with cities to develop a market for second levels in those city names, there is no prohibition against them going to those cities and working with the cities to apply as community applications, which applications would trump a garden variety non-community application. The problem you are trying to address has already been solved. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:49 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. To add to this thought: We are grossly INCONSISTENT with the protection levels that we are establishing. Right now we claim a country can NOT be allowed to support an application for their 3-letter code or country name within the gNSO policy framework – because we need to protect the country from “harm”. We are BANNING all these strings completely! But sizeable cities: anything goes, and thanks to the non-geo use provision: no protections whatsoever! Now let’s compare countries and cities (and obviously I am doing this since 2006 A LOT – when I lobbied with Dirk for .berlin to come into existence): A city like Berlin has 3.5 Million people in the city limits, and roughly 5.5 Million in the metro area. Compared to countries: · 50% of all countries are smaller than the Berlin metro area · Still over 100 countries are smaller than Berlin within its city limits · 63 countries (more than 25%) have populations under 1 Million people! So indeed: a Million inhabitant city is just population-wise at least as important and impacting as more than a quarter of all countries. BUT: if you look at a city like Berlin (or Denver, Dallas, Chicago): we aren’t just comparing population size! We are talking about domain name spaces, gTLDs! In that respect we ought to factor in the Internet penetration, the GDP and number of businesses (because they need domains – and Internet users will utilize these domains to find the businesses), cultural and political importance, etc. If you factor all this in, and compare Berlin to Belarus (a country I truly admire, beautiful capital, our southern neighbor) or Azerbaijan (each of both have 10 million people): Berlin uses WAY MORE domain names than these both. So suddenly a Million people city in an industrialized nation probably plays in the top 60% of countries – domain name usage wise. I am wrapping my head around cities and gTLDs for probably way too long (14 years). But most of the times I observe that most people just don’t understand how HYPER IMPORTANT cities are as an organizational entity in the personal and business life of people. We are totally overprotecting country-geo-entities; but seemingly have no problem whatsoever that via the “non-geo use” loophole everybody and their greed grandma could snag up city based gTLDs en masse. I think we either scrap the non-geo use provision altogether (which I personally do NOT support at all); or we at least elevate SIZEABLE cities to the same protection level as country subdivisions (these are by the way are often quite unknown, un-impacting and typically relatively small population-wise. Inconsistent.) And as the brand-cloud seemingly today admitted: there are ZERO “curative” rights in the case of a city-supported application vs. a brand application. It’s “big bucks win”. I am consulting companies in regard to domain acquisition since 21 years now (started in 1997) – and let me tell you: contrary to the picture painted here in another message; most of the larger brands have no problems to slap several Million Dollars on a domain asset; if they really want it. No chance for a city constituent, non-profit public benefit entity to survive at all. But my bigger concern are VC capital infused portfolio applicants who are simply applying for dozens of city names – declaring non-geo use. Obviously city supported applications do currently NOT “top” non-geo use applications; and what then? They city supported applicant is likely non-profit AND had likely to make concessions to the city. Their business plan is much weaker – as they strive to be public-benefit and all. How can they win an auction against VC funded applicants? The city gTLD process as we have set it up is HEAVELY stacked against the type of applicant that we always wanted to see: A good actor, public benefit, community supported, community owned & funded, non-profit, etc. Unfair, not in the interest of the Internet user or the city constituents, not in sync with ICANN’s mandate. All we are asking for is to require city support for city name applications if the city is really BIG (in comparison to for example countries). And if that cut-off size were a Million people. VC money will likely not go for cities with less than a Million people – the registrar channel won’t sell enough domains to sustain the application. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 9:10 AM Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Sorry Greg, no intention to be prejudicial. I am not arguing that the non-geo use clause be closed entirely. I am suggesting that it not be available in the case of very large cities. If we are talking about cities of 1M people, that's about 500-600 cities, defined by an authoritative list we agree on. A good number will already be reserved as capital cities. The word inventory makes it sound huge, like thousands of names are involved. That's not the case. It is very limited. I don't see that as an unreasonable compromise. Marita On 8/20/2018 1:20 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: I object to calling this feature a “loophole.” That is both prejudicial and incorrect as well. What we have is a reasonable limit on the Consent right that was given to non-capitol cities in the prior round. From an end-user perspective, there is no presumption that a geo-use is superior to any other possible use of a given string. From a city perspective, nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a city to apply for a string related to their city name. We are just not reserving numerous possibilities exclusively for their choice when or if they look into the idea of a TLD. And we are not reserving “inventory” for private businesses that consult in the geo-name space. That would truly be outside our remit. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants. It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest. I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world. Marita On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear WT, Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money. And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand. Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective: People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue). I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s). I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them. And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern. But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF. Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples: • A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”? o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them. • A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here! o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE! City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries? We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc). Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in? We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia><mailto:edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Fr...>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffile%2Ffield-file-attach%2Fannex-1-&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=5tPAZsMtAaecqOOYth%2BEcK8kT6NWj2haeKX5mFCx8l8%3D&reserved=0> gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.o...>] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=kz5Qlv8ZjaZhnl1iW5r8McZZa7dV8dcpcGhz%2FEM%2BlBc%3D&reserved=0>> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=v7ThLOQt1htQue6J7xGxpXkozzUW7CBijolY9kr58Vg%3D&reserved=0>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
I completely agree with Paul. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 8:10 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
Thanks Alexander. Your email shows why a one-ICANN-size does not fit all.
I’m not sure what free speech is, or is not, like in Berlin. None of the other three examples you use (assuming you are referring to the US cities of Denver, Dallas and Chicago) would be permitted under the First Amenment to restrain speech by insisting no one else could apply for .Denver, .Dallas, or .Chicago (and culturally, even if it was permitted, the people of Dallas certainly, and perhaps even the people of Denver, would never go for such a restriction). So while Berlin may fall squarely into the paradigm you would like ICANN to adopt, the other 75% of your examples do not.
Likewise, having ICANN start down the path of free speech curtailment in large city names does lead to the problem of ICANN getting involved in the “who deserves it” business – your very poignant example of Berlin v Belarus v Azerbaijan shows just how messy that can be.
The compromise struck in the last round – protecting capital cities – was a major concession by the free speech crowd within ICANN. As your email makes clear, expanding that concession to even more cities will be incredibly complex and will inevitably curtail speech that otherwise would be granted to some if ICANN didn’t go down this path. I think it is time for us to come to grips that ICANN simply can’t be a supranational legislator. Please keep in mind that for those who want to work with cities to develop a market for second levels in those city names, there is no prohibition against them going to those cities and working with the cities to apply as community applications, which applications would trump a garden variety non-community application. The problem you are trying to address has already been solved.
Best,
Paul
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Alexander Schubert *Sent:* Monday, August 20, 2018 8:49 AM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
To add to this thought:
We are grossly INCONSISTENT with the protection levels that we are establishing. Right now we claim a country can NOT be allowed to support an application for their 3-letter code or country name within the gNSO policy framework – because we need to protect the country from “harm”. We are BANNING all these strings completely! But sizeable cities: anything goes, and thanks to the non-geo use provision: no protections whatsoever!
Now let’s compare countries and cities (and obviously I am doing this since 2006 A LOT – when I lobbied with Dirk for .berlin to come into existence):
A city like Berlin has 3.5 Million people in the city limits, and roughly 5.5 Million in the metro area. Compared to countries:
· 50% of all countries are smaller than the Berlin metro area
· Still over 100 countries are smaller than Berlin within its city limits
· 63 countries (more than 25%) have populations under 1 Million people!
So indeed: a Million inhabitant city is just population-wise at least as important and impacting as more than a quarter of all countries. BUT: if you look at a city like Berlin (or Denver, Dallas, Chicago): we aren’t just comparing population size! We are talking about domain name spaces, gTLDs! In that respect we ought to factor in the Internet penetration, the GDP and number of businesses (because they need domains – and Internet users will utilize these domains to find the businesses), cultural and political importance, etc. If you factor all this in, and compare Berlin to Belarus (a country I truly admire, beautiful capital, our southern neighbor) or Azerbaijan (each of both have 10 million people): Berlin uses WAY MORE domain names than these both. So suddenly a Million people city in an industrialized nation probably plays in the top 60% of countries – domain name usage wise.
I am wrapping my head around cities and gTLDs for probably way too long (14 years). But most of the times I observe that most people just don’t understand how HYPER IMPORTANT cities are as an organizational entity in the personal and business life of people. We are totally overprotecting country-geo-entities; but seemingly have no problem whatsoever that via the “non-geo use” loophole everybody and their greed grandma could snag up city based gTLDs en masse.
I think we either scrap the non-geo use provision altogether (which I personally do NOT support at all); or we at least elevate SIZEABLE cities to the same protection level as country subdivisions (these are by the way are often quite unknown, un-impacting and typically relatively small population-wise. Inconsistent.)
And as the brand-cloud seemingly today admitted: there are ZERO “curative” rights in the case of a city-supported application vs. a brand application. It’s “big bucks win”. I am consulting companies in regard to domain acquisition since 21 years now (started in 1997) – and let me tell you: contrary to the picture painted here in another message; most of the larger brands have no problems to slap several Million Dollars on a domain asset; if they really want it. No chance for a city constituent, non-profit public benefit entity to survive at all. But my bigger concern are VC capital infused portfolio applicants who are simply applying for dozens of city names – declaring non-geo use. Obviously city supported applications do currently NOT “top” non-geo use applications; and what then? They city supported applicant is likely non-profit AND had likely to make concessions to the city. Their business plan is much weaker – as they strive to be public-benefit and all. How can they win an auction against VC funded applicants?
The city gTLD process as we have set it up is HEAVELY stacked against the type of applicant that we always wanted to see: A good actor, public benefit, community supported, community owned & funded, non-profit, etc.
Unfair, not in the interest of the Internet user or the city constituents, not in sync with ICANN’s mandate. All we are asking for is to require city support for city name applications if the city is really BIG (in comparison to for example countries). And if that cut-off size were a Million people. VC money will likely not go for cities with less than a Million people – the registrar channel won’t sell enough domains to sustain the application.
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Marita Moll *Sent:* Monday, August 20, 2018 9:10 AM *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Sorry Greg, no intention to be prejudicial. I am not arguing that the non-geo use clause be closed entirely. I am suggesting that it not be available in the case of very large cities. If we are talking about cities of 1M people, that's about 500-600 cities, defined by an authoritative list we agree on. A good number will already be reserved as capital cities.
The word inventory makes it sound huge, like thousands of names are involved. That's not the case. It is very limited. I don't see that as an unreasonable compromise.
Marita
On 8/20/2018 1:20 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
I object to calling this feature a “loophole.” That is both prejudicial and incorrect as well. What we have is a reasonable limit on the Consent right that was given to non-capitol cities in the prior round.
From an end-user perspective, there is no presumption that a geo-use is superior to any other possible use of a given string.
From a city perspective, nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a city to apply for a string related to their city name. We are just not reserving numerous possibilities exclusively for their choice when or if they look into the idea of a TLD. And we are not reserving “inventory” for private businesses that consult in the geo-name space. That would truly be outside our remit.
Best regards,
Greg
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants.
It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest.
I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world.
Marita
On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear WT,
Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money.
And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand.
Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective:
People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue).
I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s).
I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them.
And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern.
But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF.
*Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity*. Examples:
· A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”?
o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them.
· A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here!
o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE!
City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries?
We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc).
Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in?
We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention.
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Arasteh *Sent:* Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> <mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Cc:* Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> <edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear All
Yes they are valuable for those countries too
There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes
Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution
Regards
Kavouss .
Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list.
It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...>
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith < Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> wrote:
Hi Mike
Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’.
Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies.
If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there.
I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses.
Best wishes
Nick
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* 10 August 2018 03:35 *To:* Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> *Cc:* leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."
Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...>
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> wrote:
IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon
-------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...>
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Fr...>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file- attach/annex-1- <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann....> gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.o...> ] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- 3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field- 2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines- 2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6 sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m= NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s= g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e= <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....>
.
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
------------------------------ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
+1 ________________________________ [https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b113a1d2a61b_WIPG_LogoMark.png]<https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group 1200 17<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>th<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>, Ste 501<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> brian@winterfeldt.law<mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 903 4422 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 3:42 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. I completely agree with Paul. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 8:10 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Thanks Alexander. Your email shows why a one-ICANN-size does not fit all. I’m not sure what free speech is, or is not, like in Berlin. None of the other three examples you use (assuming you are referring to the US cities of Denver, Dallas and Chicago) would be permitted under the First Amenment to restrain speech by insisting no one else could apply for .Denver, .Dallas, or .Chicago (and culturally, even if it was permitted, the people of Dallas certainly, and perhaps even the people of Denver, would never go for such a restriction). So while Berlin may fall squarely into the paradigm you would like ICANN to adopt, the other 75% of your examples do not. Likewise, having ICANN start down the path of free speech curtailment in large city names does lead to the problem of ICANN getting involved in the “who deserves it” business – your very poignant example of Berlin v Belarus v Azerbaijan shows just how messy that can be. The compromise struck in the last round – protecting capital cities – was a major concession by the free speech crowd within ICANN. As your email makes clear, expanding that concession to even more cities will be incredibly complex and will inevitably curtail speech that otherwise would be granted to some if ICANN didn’t go down this path. I think it is time for us to come to grips that ICANN simply can’t be a supranational legislator. Please keep in mind that for those who want to work with cities to develop a market for second levels in those city names, there is no prohibition against them going to those cities and working with the cities to apply as community applications, which applications would trump a garden variety non-community application. The problem you are trying to address has already been solved. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:49 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. To add to this thought: We are grossly INCONSISTENT with the protection levels that we are establishing. Right now we claim a country can NOT be allowed to support an application for their 3-letter code or country name within the gNSO policy framework – because we need to protect the country from “harm”. We are BANNING all these strings completely! But sizeable cities: anything goes, and thanks to the non-geo use provision: no protections whatsoever! Now let’s compare countries and cities (and obviously I am doing this since 2006 A LOT – when I lobbied with Dirk for .berlin to come into existence): A city like Berlin has 3.5 Million people in the city limits, and roughly 5.5 Million in the metro area. Compared to countries: • 50% of all countries are smaller than the Berlin metro area • Still over 100 countries are smaller than Berlin within its city limits • 63 countries (more than 25%) have populations under 1 Million people! So indeed: a Million inhabitant city is just population-wise at least as important and impacting as more than a quarter of all countries. BUT: if you look at a city like Berlin (or Denver, Dallas, Chicago): we aren’t just comparing population size! We are talking about domain name spaces, gTLDs! In that respect we ought to factor in the Internet penetration, the GDP and number of businesses (because they need domains – and Internet users will utilize these domains to find the businesses), cultural and political importance, etc. If you factor all this in, and compare Berlin to Belarus (a country I truly admire, beautiful capital, our southern neighbor) or Azerbaijan (each of both have 10 million people): Berlin uses WAY MORE domain names than these both. So suddenly a Million people city in an industrialized nation probably plays in the top 60% of countries – domain name usage wise. I am wrapping my head around cities and gTLDs for probably way too long (14 years). But most of the times I observe that most people just don’t understand how HYPER IMPORTANT cities are as an organizational entity in the personal and business life of people. We are totally overprotecting country-geo-entities; but seemingly have no problem whatsoever that via the “non-geo use” loophole everybody and their greed grandma could snag up city based gTLDs en masse. I think we either scrap the non-geo use provision altogether (which I personally do NOT support at all); or we at least elevate SIZEABLE cities to the same protection level as country subdivisions (these are by the way are often quite unknown, un-impacting and typically relatively small population-wise. Inconsistent.) And as the brand-cloud seemingly today admitted: there are ZERO “curative” rights in the case of a city-supported application vs. a brand application. It’s “big bucks win”. I am consulting companies in regard to domain acquisition since 21 years now (started in 1997) – and let me tell you: contrary to the picture painted here in another message; most of the larger brands have no problems to slap several Million Dollars on a domain asset; if they really want it. No chance for a city constituent, non-profit public benefit entity to survive at all. But my bigger concern are VC capital infused portfolio applicants who are simply applying for dozens of city names – declaring non-geo use. Obviously city supported applications do currently NOT “top” non-geo use applications; and what then? They city supported applicant is likely non-profit AND had likely to make concessions to the city. Their business plan is much weaker – as they strive to be public-benefit and all. How can they win an auction against VC funded applicants? The city gTLD process as we have set it up is HEAVELY stacked against the type of applicant that we always wanted to see: A good actor, public benefit, community supported, community owned & funded, non-profit, etc. Unfair, not in the interest of the Internet user or the city constituents, not in sync with ICANN’s mandate. All we are asking for is to require city support for city name applications if the city is really BIG (in comparison to for example countries). And if that cut-off size were a Million people. VC money will likely not go for cities with less than a Million people – the registrar channel won’t sell enough domains to sustain the application. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 9:10 AM Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Sorry Greg, no intention to be prejudicial. I am not arguing that the non-geo use clause be closed entirely. I am suggesting that it not be available in the case of very large cities. If we are talking about cities of 1M people, that's about 500-600 cities, defined by an authoritative list we agree on. A good number will already be reserved as capital cities. The word inventory makes it sound huge, like thousands of names are involved. That's not the case. It is very limited. I don't see that as an unreasonable compromise. Marita On 8/20/2018 1:20 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: I object to calling this feature a “loophole.” That is both prejudicial and incorrect as well. What we have is a reasonable limit on the Consent right that was given to non-capitol cities in the prior round. From an end-user perspective, there is no presumption that a geo-use is superior to any other possible use of a given string. From a city perspective, nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a city to apply for a string related to their city name. We are just not reserving numerous possibilities exclusively for their choice when or if they look into the idea of a TLD. And we are not reserving “inventory” for private businesses that consult in the geo-name space. That would truly be outside our remit. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants. It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest. I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world. Marita On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear WT, Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money. And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand. Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective: People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue). I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s). I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them. And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern. But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF. Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples: • A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”? o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them. • A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here! o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE! City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries? We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc). Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in? We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia><mailto:edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Fr...>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffile%2Ffield-file-attach%2Fannex-1-&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=5tPAZsMtAaecqOOYth%2BEcK8kT6NWj2haeKX5mFCx8l8%3D&reserved=0> gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.o...>] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=kz5Qlv8ZjaZhnl1iW5r8McZZa7dV8dcpcGhz%2FEM%2BlBc%3D&reserved=0>> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=v7ThLOQt1htQue6J7xGxpXkozzUW7CBijolY9kr58Vg%3D&reserved=0>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ 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
The beauty of the current system (the non-objection letter) is that it implies a system of subsidiarity. In countries where (for whatever reasons) local authorities have no rights, policies whatsoever, they will have to abide by that framework and respond that they have no-objection. Otherwise they would be breaking the law. In those countries where there are rights, policies or whatsoever that allow a local authority to intervene regarding their names/identifiers, they will have to follow the law when providing the letter of non-objection, setting condition or even denying it. So, with the 2012 AGB the ICANN actually applied a principle of subsidiarity here, without trying to impose a “one-size-fits all” approach, but allowing for different local approaches. In general, as local authorities are bound by law, their actions can be subject to review. As to potential tardiness or absence of reply: as we have discussed, the new AGB could provide for deadlines for responses by the local government; it may even provide for an implied non-objection if there is no response within the deadline; and there can be even a mediation process being established in case the applicant does not agree with the decision from the local authority… Best regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von McGrady, Paul D. Gesendet: Montag, 20. August 2018 17:11 An: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Thanks Alexander. Your email shows why a one-ICANN-size does not fit all. I’m not sure what free speech is, or is not, like in Berlin. None of the other three examples you use (assuming you are referring to the US cities of Denver, Dallas and Chicago) would be permitted under the First Amenment to restrain speech by insisting no one else could apply for .Denver, .Dallas, or .Chicago (and culturally, even if it was permitted, the people of Dallas certainly, and perhaps even the people of Denver, would never go for such a restriction). So while Berlin may fall squarely into the paradigm you would like ICANN to adopt, the other 75% of your examples do not. Likewise, having ICANN start down the path of free speech curtailment in large city names does lead to the problem of ICANN getting involved in the “who deserves it” business – your very poignant example of Berlin v Belarus v Azerbaijan shows just how messy that can be. The compromise struck in the last round – protecting capital cities – was a major concession by the free speech crowd within ICANN. As your email makes clear, expanding that concession to even more cities will be incredibly complex and will inevitably curtail speech that otherwise would be granted to some if ICANN didn’t go down this path. I think it is time for us to come to grips that ICANN simply can’t be a supranational legislator. Please keep in mind that for those who want to work with cities to develop a market for second levels in those city names, there is no prohibition against them going to those cities and working with the cities to apply as community applications, which applications would trump a garden variety non-community application. The problem you are trying to address has already been solved. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:49 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. To add to this thought: We are grossly INCONSISTENT with the protection levels that we are establishing. Right now we claim a country can NOT be allowed to support an application for their 3-letter code or country name within the gNSO policy framework – because we need to protect the country from “harm”. We are BANNING all these strings completely! But sizeable cities: anything goes, and thanks to the non-geo use provision: no protections whatsoever! Now let’s compare countries and cities (and obviously I am doing this since 2006 A LOT – when I lobbied with Dirk for .berlin to come into existence): A city like Berlin has 3.5 Million people in the city limits, and roughly 5.5 Million in the metro area. Compared to countries: · 50% of all countries are smaller than the Berlin metro area · Still over 100 countries are smaller than Berlin within its city limits · 63 countries (more than 25%) have populations under 1 Million people! So indeed: a Million inhabitant city is just population-wise at least as important and impacting as more than a quarter of all countries. BUT: if you look at a city like Berlin (or Denver, Dallas, Chicago): we aren’t just comparing population size! We are talking about domain name spaces, gTLDs! In that respect we ought to factor in the Internet penetration, the GDP and number of businesses (because they need domains – and Internet users will utilize these domains to find the businesses), cultural and political importance, etc. If you factor all this in, and compare Berlin to Belarus (a country I truly admire, beautiful capital, our southern neighbor) or Azerbaijan (each of both have 10 million people): Berlin uses WAY MORE domain names than these both. So suddenly a Million people city in an industrialized nation probably plays in the top 60% of countries – domain name usage wise. I am wrapping my head around cities and gTLDs for probably way too long (14 years). But most of the times I observe that most people just don’t understand how HYPER IMPORTANT cities are as an organizational entity in the personal and business life of people. We are totally overprotecting country-geo-entities; but seemingly have no problem whatsoever that via the “non-geo use” loophole everybody and their greed grandma could snag up city based gTLDs en masse. I think we either scrap the non-geo use provision altogether (which I personally do NOT support at all); or we at least elevate SIZEABLE cities to the same protection level as country subdivisions (these are by the way are often quite unknown, un-impacting and typically relatively small population-wise. Inconsistent.) And as the brand-cloud seemingly today admitted: there are ZERO “curative” rights in the case of a city-supported application vs. a brand application. It’s “big bucks win”. I am consulting companies in regard to domain acquisition since 21 years now (started in 1997) – and let me tell you: contrary to the picture painted here in another message; most of the larger brands have no problems to slap several Million Dollars on a domain asset; if they really want it. No chance for a city constituent, non-profit public benefit entity to survive at all. But my bigger concern are VC capital infused portfolio applicants who are simply applying for dozens of city names – declaring non-geo use. Obviously city supported applications do currently NOT “top” non-geo use applications; and what then? They city supported applicant is likely non-profit AND had likely to make concessions to the city. Their business plan is much weaker – as they strive to be public-benefit and all. How can they win an auction against VC funded applicants? The city gTLD process as we have set it up is HEAVELY stacked against the type of applicant that we always wanted to see: A good actor, public benefit, community supported, community owned & funded, non-profit, etc. Unfair, not in the interest of the Internet user or the city constituents, not in sync with ICANN’s mandate. All we are asking for is to require city support for city name applications if the city is really BIG (in comparison to for example countries). And if that cut-off size were a Million people. VC money will likely not go for cities with less than a Million people – the registrar channel won’t sell enough domains to sustain the application. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 9:10 AM Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Sorry Greg, no intention to be prejudicial. I am not arguing that the non-geo use clause be closed entirely. I am suggesting that it not be available in the case of very large cities. If we are talking about cities of 1M people, that's about 500-600 cities, defined by an authoritative list we agree on. A good number will already be reserved as capital cities. The word inventory makes it sound huge, like thousands of names are involved. That's not the case. It is very limited. I don't see that as an unreasonable compromise. Marita On 8/20/2018 1:20 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: I object to calling this feature a “loophole.” That is both prejudicial and incorrect as well. What we have is a reasonable limit on the Consent right that was given to non-capitol cities in the prior round. From an end-user perspective, there is no presumption that a geo-use is superior to any other possible use of a given string. From a city perspective, nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a city to apply for a string related to their city name. We are just not reserving numerous possibilities exclusively for their choice when or if they look into the idea of a TLD. And we are not reserving “inventory” for private businesses that consult in the geo-name space. That would truly be outside our remit. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants. It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest. I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world. Marita On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear WT, Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money. And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand. Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective: People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue). I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s). I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them. And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern. But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF. Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples: • A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”? o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them. • A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here! o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE! City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries? We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc). Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in? We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia><mailto:edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Fr...>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffile%2Ffield-file-attach%2Fannex-1-&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=5tPAZsMtAaecqOOYth%2BEcK8kT6NWj2haeKX5mFCx8l8%3D&reserved=0> gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.o...>] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=kz5Qlv8ZjaZhnl1iW5r8McZZa7dV8dcpcGhz%2FEM%2BlBc%3D&reserved=0>> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=v7ThLOQt1htQue6J7xGxpXkozzUW7CBijolY9kr58Vg%3D&reserved=0>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Gracias Jorge. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:39 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
The beauty of the current system (the non-objection letter) is that it implies a system of subsidiarity. In countries where (for whatever reasons) local authorities have no rights, policies whatsoever, they will have to abide by that framework and respond that they have no-objection. Otherwise they would be breaking the law.
In those countries where there are rights, policies or whatsoever that allow a local authority to intervene regarding their names/identifiers, they will have to follow the law when providing the letter of non-objection, setting condition or even denying it.
So, with the 2012 AGB the ICANN actually applied a principle of subsidiarity here, without trying to impose a “one-size-fits all” approach, but allowing for different local approaches.
In general, as local authorities are bound by law, their actions can be subject to review.
As to potential tardiness or absence of reply: as we have discussed, the new AGB could provide for deadlines for responses by the local government; it may even provide for an implied non-objection if there is no response within the deadline; and there can be even a mediation process being established in case the applicant does not agree with the decision from the local authority…
Best regards
Jorge
Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von McGrady, Paul D. Gesendet: Montag, 20. August 2018 17:11 An: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Thanks Alexander. Your email shows why a one-ICANN-size does not fit all.
I’m not sure what free speech is, or is not, like in Berlin. None of the other three examples you use (assuming you are referring to the US cities of Denver, Dallas and Chicago) would be permitted under the First Amenment to restrain speech by insisting no one else could apply for .Denver, .Dallas, or .Chicago (and culturally, even if it was permitted, the people of Dallas certainly, and perhaps even the people of Denver, would never go for such a restriction). So while Berlin may fall squarely into the paradigm you would like ICANN to adopt, the other 75% of your examples do not.
Likewise, having ICANN start down the path of free speech curtailment in large city names does lead to the problem of ICANN getting involved in the “who deserves it” business – your very poignant example of Berlin v Belarus v Azerbaijan shows just how messy that can be.
The compromise struck in the last round – protecting capital cities – was a major concession by the free speech crowd within ICANN. As your email makes clear, expanding that concession to even more cities will be incredibly complex and will inevitably curtail speech that otherwise would be granted to some if ICANN didn’t go down this path. I think it is time for us to come to grips that ICANN simply can’t be a supranational legislator. Please keep in mind that for those who want to work with cities to develop a market for second levels in those city names, there is no prohibition against them going to those cities and working with the cities to apply as community applications, which applications would trump a garden variety non-community application. The problem you are trying to address has already been solved.
Best, Paul
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:49 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
To add to this thought:
We are grossly INCONSISTENT with the protection levels that we are establishing. Right now we claim a country can NOT be allowed to support an application for their 3-letter code or country name within the gNSO policy framework – because we need to protect the country from “harm”. We are BANNING all these strings completely! But sizeable cities: anything goes, and thanks to the non-geo use provision: no protections whatsoever!
Now let’s compare countries and cities (and obviously I am doing this since 2006 A LOT – when I lobbied with Dirk for .berlin to come into existence): A city like Berlin has 3.5 Million people in the city limits, and roughly 5.5 Million in the metro area. Compared to countries: · 50% of all countries are smaller than the Berlin metro area · Still over 100 countries are smaller than Berlin within its city limits · 63 countries (more than 25%) have populations under 1 Million people!
So indeed: a Million inhabitant city is just population-wise at least as important and impacting as more than a quarter of all countries. BUT: if you look at a city like Berlin (or Denver, Dallas, Chicago): we aren’t just comparing population size! We are talking about domain name spaces, gTLDs! In that respect we ought to factor in the Internet penetration, the GDP and number of businesses (because they need domains – and Internet users will utilize these domains to find the businesses), cultural and political importance, etc. If you factor all this in, and compare Berlin to Belarus (a country I truly admire, beautiful capital, our southern neighbor) or Azerbaijan (each of both have 10 million people): Berlin uses WAY MORE domain names than these both. So suddenly a Million people city in an industrialized nation probably plays in the top 60% of countries – domain name usage wise.
I am wrapping my head around cities and gTLDs for probably way too long (14 years). But most of the times I observe that most people just don’t understand how HYPER IMPORTANT cities are as an organizational entity in the personal and business life of people. We are totally overprotecting country-geo-entities; but seemingly have no problem whatsoever that via the “non-geo use” loophole everybody and their greed grandma could snag up city based gTLDs en masse.
I think we either scrap the non-geo use provision altogether (which I personally do NOT support at all); or we at least elevate SIZEABLE cities to the same protection level as country subdivisions (these are by the way are often quite unknown, un-impacting and typically relatively small population-wise. Inconsistent.)
And as the brand-cloud seemingly today admitted: there are ZERO “curative” rights in the case of a city-supported application vs. a brand application. It’s “big bucks win”. I am consulting companies in regard to domain acquisition since 21 years now (started in 1997) – and let me tell you: contrary to the picture painted here in another message; most of the larger brands have no problems to slap several Million Dollars on a domain asset; if they really want it. No chance for a city constituent, non-profit public benefit entity to survive at all. But my bigger concern are VC capital infused portfolio applicants who are simply applying for dozens of city names – declaring non-geo use. Obviously city supported applications do currently NOT “top” non-geo use applications; and what then? They city supported applicant is likely non-profit AND had likely to make concessions to the city. Their business plan is much weaker – as they strive to be public-benefit and all. How can they win an auction against VC funded applicants?
The city gTLD process as we have set it up is HEAVELY stacked against the type of applicant that we always wanted to see: A good actor, public benefit, community supported, community owned & funded, non-profit, etc.
Unfair, not in the interest of the Internet user or the city constituents, not in sync with ICANN’s mandate. All we are asking for is to require city support for city name applications if the city is really BIG (in comparison to for example countries). And if that cut-off size were a Million people. VC money will likely not go for cities with less than a Million people – the registrar channel won’t sell enough domains to sustain the application.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 9:10 AM Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Sorry Greg, no intention to be prejudicial. I am not arguing that the non-geo use clause be closed entirely. I am suggesting that it not be available in the case of very large cities. If we are talking about cities of 1M people, that's about 500-600 cities, defined by an authoritative list we agree on. A good number will already be reserved as capital cities.
The word inventory makes it sound huge, like thousands of names are involved. That's not the case. It is very limited. I don't see that as an unreasonable compromise.
Marita
On 8/20/2018 1:20 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: I object to calling this feature a “loophole.” That is both prejudicial and incorrect as well. What we have is a reasonable limit on the Consent right that was given to non-capitol cities in the prior round.
From an end-user perspective, there is no presumption that a geo-use is superior to any other possible use of a given string.
From a city perspective, nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a city to apply for a string related to their city name. We are just not reserving numerous possibilities exclusively for their choice when or if they look into the idea of a TLD. And we are not reserving “inventory” for private businesses that consult in the geo-name space. That would truly be outside our remit.
Best regards,
Greg
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote: I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants.
It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest.
I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world.
Marita
On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear WT,
Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money.
And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand.
Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective:
People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue).
I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s).
I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them.
And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern.
But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF.
Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples: · A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”?
o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them.
· A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here!
o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE!
City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries?
We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc).
Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in?
We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss .
Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list.
It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> wrote: Hi Mike
Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’.
Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies.
If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there.
I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses.
Best wishes Nick
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon
-------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1- gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
+1 from me on this, this seemed a good compromise solution for capital cities, names of cities where the application was intended to represent the people of the city plus the sub-national names As can be seen by the successful delegations from the 2012 round (if we can smooth that process as Jorge suggests then even better) If it isn’t broken then let’s not try to fix it, there are other areas such as the non-AGB2012 geo terms for which we don’t have any solution at present From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: 21 August 2018 07:39 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. The beauty of the current system (the non-objection letter) is that it implies a system of subsidiarity. In countries where (for whatever reasons) local authorities have no rights, policies whatsoever, they will have to abide by that framework and respond that they have no-objection. Otherwise they would be breaking the law. In those countries where there are rights, policies or whatsoever that allow a local authority to intervene regarding their names/identifiers, they will have to follow the law when providing the letter of non-objection, setting condition or even denying it. So, with the 2012 AGB the ICANN actually applied a principle of subsidiarity here, without trying to impose a “one-size-fits all” approach, but allowing for different local approaches. In general, as local authorities are bound by law, their actions can be subject to review. As to potential tardiness or absence of reply: as we have discussed, the new AGB could provide for deadlines for responses by the local government; it may even provide for an implied non-objection if there is no response within the deadline; and there can be even a mediation process being established in case the applicant does not agree with the decision from the local authority… Best regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von McGrady, Paul D. Gesendet: Montag, 20. August 2018 17:11 An: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Thanks Alexander. Your email shows why a one-ICANN-size does not fit all. I’m not sure what free speech is, or is not, like in Berlin. None of the other three examples you use (assuming you are referring to the US cities of Denver, Dallas and Chicago) would be permitted under the First Amenment to restrain speech by insisting no one else could apply for .Denver, .Dallas, or .Chicago (and culturally, even if it was permitted, the people of Dallas certainly, and perhaps even the people of Denver, would never go for such a restriction). So while Berlin may fall squarely into the paradigm you would like ICANN to adopt, the other 75% of your examples do not. Likewise, having ICANN start down the path of free speech curtailment in large city names does lead to the problem of ICANN getting involved in the “who deserves it” business – your very poignant example of Berlin v Belarus v Azerbaijan shows just how messy that can be. The compromise struck in the last round – protecting capital cities – was a major concession by the free speech crowd within ICANN. As your email makes clear, expanding that concession to even more cities will be incredibly complex and will inevitably curtail speech that otherwise would be granted to some if ICANN didn’t go down this path. I think it is time for us to come to grips that ICANN simply can’t be a supranational legislator. Please keep in mind that for those who want to work with cities to develop a market for second levels in those city names, there is no prohibition against them going to those cities and working with the cities to apply as community applications, which applications would trump a garden variety non-community application. The problem you are trying to address has already been solved. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:49 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. To add to this thought: We are grossly INCONSISTENT with the protection levels that we are establishing. Right now we claim a country can NOT be allowed to support an application for their 3-letter code or country name within the gNSO policy framework – because we need to protect the country from “harm”. We are BANNING all these strings completely! But sizeable cities: anything goes, and thanks to the non-geo use provision: no protections whatsoever! Now let’s compare countries and cities (and obviously I am doing this since 2006 A LOT – when I lobbied with Dirk for .berlin to come into existence): A city like Berlin has 3.5 Million people in the city limits, and roughly 5.5 Million in the metro area. Compared to countries: * 50% of all countries are smaller than the Berlin metro area * Still over 100 countries are smaller than Berlin within its city limits * 63 countries (more than 25%) have populations under 1 Million people! So indeed: a Million inhabitant city is just population-wise at least as important and impacting as more than a quarter of all countries. BUT: if you look at a city like Berlin (or Denver, Dallas, Chicago): we aren’t just comparing population size! We are talking about domain name spaces, gTLDs! In that respect we ought to factor in the Internet penetration, the GDP and number of businesses (because they need domains – and Internet users will utilize these domains to find the businesses), cultural and political importance, etc. If you factor all this in, and compare Berlin to Belarus (a country I truly admire, beautiful capital, our southern neighbor) or Azerbaijan (each of both have 10 million people): Berlin uses WAY MORE domain names than these both. So suddenly a Million people city in an industrialized nation probably plays in the top 60% of countries – domain name usage wise. I am wrapping my head around cities and gTLDs for probably way too long (14 years). But most of the times I observe that most people just don’t understand how HYPER IMPORTANT cities are as an organizational entity in the personal and business life of people. We are totally overprotecting country-geo-entities; but seemingly have no problem whatsoever that via the “non-geo use” loophole everybody and their greed grandma could snag up city based gTLDs en masse. I think we either scrap the non-geo use provision altogether (which I personally do NOT support at all); or we at least elevate SIZEABLE cities to the same protection level as country subdivisions (these are by the way are often quite unknown, un-impacting and typically relatively small population-wise. Inconsistent.) And as the brand-cloud seemingly today admitted: there are ZERO “curative” rights in the case of a city-supported application vs. a brand application. It’s “big bucks win”. I am consulting companies in regard to domain acquisition since 21 years now (started in 1997) – and let me tell you: contrary to the picture painted here in another message; most of the larger brands have no problems to slap several Million Dollars on a domain asset; if they really want it. No chance for a city constituent, non-profit public benefit entity to survive at all. But my bigger concern are VC capital infused portfolio applicants who are simply applying for dozens of city names – declaring non-geo use. Obviously city supported applications do currently NOT “top” non-geo use applications; and what then? They city supported applicant is likely non-profit AND had likely to make concessions to the city. Their business plan is much weaker – as they strive to be public-benefit and all. How can they win an auction against VC funded applicants? The city gTLD process as we have set it up is HEAVELY stacked against the type of applicant that we always wanted to see: A good actor, public benefit, community supported, community owned & funded, non-profit, etc. Unfair, not in the interest of the Internet user or the city constituents, not in sync with ICANN’s mandate. All we are asking for is to require city support for city name applications if the city is really BIG (in comparison to for example countries). And if that cut-off size were a Million people. VC money will likely not go for cities with less than a Million people – the registrar channel won’t sell enough domains to sustain the application. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 9:10 AM Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Sorry Greg, no intention to be prejudicial. I am not arguing that the non-geo use clause be closed entirely. I am suggesting that it not be available in the case of very large cities. If we are talking about cities of 1M people, that's about 500-600 cities, defined by an authoritative list we agree on. A good number will already be reserved as capital cities. The word inventory makes it sound huge, like thousands of names are involved. That's not the case. It is very limited. I don't see that as an unreasonable compromise. Marita On 8/20/2018 1:20 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: I object to calling this feature a “loophole.” That is both prejudicial and incorrect as well. What we have is a reasonable limit on the Consent right that was given to non-capitol cities in the prior round. From an end-user perspective, there is no presumption that a geo-use is superior to any other possible use of a given string. From a city perspective, nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a city to apply for a string related to their city name. We are just not reserving numerous possibilities exclusively for their choice when or if they look into the idea of a TLD. And we are not reserving “inventory” for private businesses that consult in the geo-name space. That would truly be outside our remit. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants. It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest. I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world. Marita On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear WT, Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money. And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand. Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective: People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue). I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s). I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them. And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern. But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF. Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples: • A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”? o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them. • A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here! o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE! City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries? We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc). Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in? We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia><mailto:edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Fr...>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffile%2Ffield-file-attach%2Fannex-1-&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=5tPAZsMtAaecqOOYth%2BEcK8kT6NWj2haeKX5mFCx8l8%3D&reserved=0> gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.o...>] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=kz5Qlv8ZjaZhnl1iW5r8McZZa7dV8dcpcGhz%2FEM%2BlBc%3D&reserved=0>> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=v7ThLOQt1htQue6J7xGxpXkozzUW7CBijolY9kr58Vg%3D&reserved=0>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
+ 1 from me also. Best regards / Med vennlig hilsen Ann-Cathrin Marcussen Head of Legal UNINETT Norid AS 7465 Trondheim Oslokontor St Olavs Plass 2 0165 Oslo Mobil +47 920 14 282 acm@norid.no<mailto:acm@norid.no> 21. aug. 2018 kl. 12:55 skrev Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>>: +1 from me on this, this seemed a good compromise solution for capital cities, names of cities where the application was intended to represent the people of the city plus the sub-national names As can be seen by the successful delegations from the 2012 round (if we can smooth that process as Jorge suggests then even better) If it isn’t broken then let’s not try to fix it, there are other areas such as the non-AGB2012 geo terms for which we don’t have any solution at present From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: 21 August 2018 07:39 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. The beauty of the current system (the non-objection letter) is that it implies a system of subsidiarity. In countries where (for whatever reasons) local authorities have no rights, policies whatsoever, they will have to abide by that framework and respond that they have no-objection. Otherwise they would be breaking the law. In those countries where there are rights, policies or whatsoever that allow a local authority to intervene regarding their names/identifiers, they will have to follow the law when providing the letter of non-objection, setting condition or even denying it. So, with the 2012 AGB the ICANN actually applied a principle of subsidiarity here, without trying to impose a “one-size-fits all” approach, but allowing for different local approaches. In general, as local authorities are bound by law, their actions can be subject to review. As to potential tardiness or absence of reply: as we have discussed, the new AGB could provide for deadlines for responses by the local government; it may even provide for an implied non-objection if there is no response within the deadline; and there can be even a mediation process being established in case the applicant does not agree with the decision from the local authority… Best regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von McGrady, Paul D. Gesendet: Montag, 20. August 2018 17:11 An: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Thanks Alexander. Your email shows why a one-ICANN-size does not fit all. I’m not sure what free speech is, or is not, like in Berlin. None of the other three examples you use (assuming you are referring to the US cities of Denver, Dallas and Chicago) would be permitted under the First Amenment to restrain speech by insisting no one else could apply for .Denver, .Dallas, or .Chicago (and culturally, even if it was permitted, the people of Dallas certainly, and perhaps even the people of Denver, would never go for such a restriction). So while Berlin may fall squarely into the paradigm you would like ICANN to adopt, the other 75% of your examples do not. Likewise, having ICANN start down the path of free speech curtailment in large city names does lead to the problem of ICANN getting involved in the “who deserves it” business – your very poignant example of Berlin v Belarus v Azerbaijan shows just how messy that can be. The compromise struck in the last round – protecting capital cities – was a major concession by the free speech crowd within ICANN. As your email makes clear, expanding that concession to even more cities will be incredibly complex and will inevitably curtail speech that otherwise would be granted to some if ICANN didn’t go down this path. I think it is time for us to come to grips that ICANN simply can’t be a supranational legislator. Please keep in mind that for those who want to work with cities to develop a market for second levels in those city names, there is no prohibition against them going to those cities and working with the cities to apply as community applications, which applications would trump a garden variety non-community application. The problem you are trying to address has already been solved. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:49 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. To add to this thought: We are grossly INCONSISTENT with the protection levels that we are establishing. Right now we claim a country can NOT be allowed to support an application for their 3-letter code or country name within the gNSO policy framework – because we need to protect the country from “harm”. We are BANNING all these strings completely! But sizeable cities: anything goes, and thanks to the non-geo use provision: no protections whatsoever! Now let’s compare countries and cities (and obviously I am doing this since 2006 A LOT – when I lobbied with Dirk for .berlin to come into existence): A city like Berlin has 3.5 Million people in the city limits, and roughly 5.5 Million in the metro area. Compared to countries: * 50% of all countries are smaller than the Berlin metro area * Still over 100 countries are smaller than Berlin within its city limits * 63 countries (more than 25%) have populations under 1 Million people! So indeed: a Million inhabitant city is just population-wise at least as important and impacting as more than a quarter of all countries. BUT: if you look at a city like Berlin (or Denver, Dallas, Chicago): we aren’t just comparing population size! We are talking about domain name spaces, gTLDs! In that respect we ought to factor in the Internet penetration, the GDP and number of businesses (because they need domains – and Internet users will utilize these domains to find the businesses), cultural and political importance, etc. If you factor all this in, and compare Berlin to Belarus (a country I truly admire, beautiful capital, our southern neighbor) or Azerbaijan (each of both have 10 million people): Berlin uses WAY MORE domain names than these both. So suddenly a Million people city in an industrialized nation probably plays in the top 60% of countries – domain name usage wise. I am wrapping my head around cities and gTLDs for probably way too long (14 years). But most of the times I observe that most people just don’t understand how HYPER IMPORTANT cities are as an organizational entity in the personal and business life of people. We are totally overprotecting country-geo-entities; but seemingly have no problem whatsoever that via the “non-geo use” loophole everybody and their greed grandma could snag up city based gTLDs en masse. I think we either scrap the non-geo use provision altogether (which I personally do NOT support at all); or we at least elevate SIZEABLE cities to the same protection level as country subdivisions (these are by the way are often quite unknown, un-impacting and typically relatively small population-wise. Inconsistent.) And as the brand-cloud seemingly today admitted: there are ZERO “curative” rights in the case of a city-supported application vs. a brand application. It’s “big bucks win”. I am consulting companies in regard to domain acquisition since 21 years now (started in 1997) – and let me tell you: contrary to the picture painted here in another message; most of the larger brands have no problems to slap several Million Dollars on a domain asset; if they really want it. No chance for a city constituent, non-profit public benefit entity to survive at all. But my bigger concern are VC capital infused portfolio applicants who are simply applying for dozens of city names – declaring non-geo use. Obviously city supported applications do currently NOT “top” non-geo use applications; and what then? They city supported applicant is likely non-profit AND had likely to make concessions to the city. Their business plan is much weaker – as they strive to be public-benefit and all. How can they win an auction against VC funded applicants? The city gTLD process as we have set it up is HEAVELY stacked against the type of applicant that we always wanted to see: A good actor, public benefit, community supported, community owned & funded, non-profit, etc. Unfair, not in the interest of the Internet user or the city constituents, not in sync with ICANN’s mandate. All we are asking for is to require city support for city name applications if the city is really BIG (in comparison to for example countries). And if that cut-off size were a Million people. VC money will likely not go for cities with less than a Million people – the registrar channel won’t sell enough domains to sustain the application. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 9:10 AM Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Sorry Greg, no intention to be prejudicial. I am not arguing that the non-geo use clause be closed entirely. I am suggesting that it not be available in the case of very large cities. If we are talking about cities of 1M people, that's about 500-600 cities, defined by an authoritative list we agree on. A good number will already be reserved as capital cities. The word inventory makes it sound huge, like thousands of names are involved. That's not the case. It is very limited. I don't see that as an unreasonable compromise. Marita On 8/20/2018 1:20 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: I object to calling this feature a “loophole.” That is both prejudicial and incorrect as well. What we have is a reasonable limit on the Consent right that was given to non-capitol cities in the prior round. From an end-user perspective, there is no presumption that a geo-use is superior to any other possible use of a given string. From a city perspective, nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a city to apply for a string related to their city name. We are just not reserving numerous possibilities exclusively for their choice when or if they look into the idea of a TLD. And we are not reserving “inventory” for private businesses that consult in the geo-name space. That would truly be outside our remit. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants. It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest. I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world. Marita On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear WT, Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money. And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand. Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective: People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue). I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s). I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them. And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern. But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF. Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples: • A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”? o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them. • A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here! o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE! City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries? We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc). Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in? We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia><mailto:edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Fr...>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffile%2Ffield-file-attach%2Fannex-1-&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=5tPAZsMtAaecqOOYth%2BEcK8kT6NWj2haeKX5mFCx8l8%3D&reserved=0> gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.o...>] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=kz5Qlv8ZjaZhnl1iW5r8McZZa7dV8dcpcGhz%2FEM%2BlBc%3D&reserved=0>> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=v7ThLOQt1htQue6J7xGxpXkozzUW7CBijolY9kr58Vg%3D&reserved=0>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ 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
+1 Kind regards Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Ann-Cathrin Marcussen Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 13:00 An: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. + 1 from me also. Best regards / Med vennlig hilsen Ann-Cathrin Marcussen Head of Legal UNINETT Norid AS 7465 Trondheim Oslokontor St Olavs Plass 2 0165 Oslo Mobil +47 920 14 282 acm@norid.no<mailto:acm@norid.no> 21. aug. 2018 kl. 12:55 skrev Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>>: +1 from me on this, this seemed a good compromise solution for capital cities, names of cities where the application was intended to represent the people of the city plus the sub-national names As can be seen by the successful delegations from the 2012 round (if we can smooth that process as Jorge suggests then even better) If it isn’t broken then let’s not try to fix it, there are other areas such as the non-AGB2012 geo terms for which we don’t have any solution at present From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: 21 August 2018 07:39 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. The beauty of the current system (the non-objection letter) is that it implies a system of subsidiarity. In countries where (for whatever reasons) local authorities have no rights, policies whatsoever, they will have to abide by that framework and respond that they have no-objection. Otherwise they would be breaking the law. In those countries where there are rights, policies or whatsoever that allow a local authority to intervene regarding their names/identifiers, they will have to follow the law when providing the letter of non-objection, setting condition or even denying it. So, with the 2012 AGB the ICANN actually applied a principle of subsidiarity here, without trying to impose a “one-size-fits all” approach, but allowing for different local approaches. In general, as local authorities are bound by law, their actions can be subject to review. As to potential tardiness or absence of reply: as we have discussed, the new AGB could provide for deadlines for responses by the local government; it may even provide for an implied non-objection if there is no response within the deadline; and there can be even a mediation process being established in case the applicant does not agree with the decision from the local authority… Best regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von McGrady, Paul D. Gesendet: Montag, 20. August 2018 17:11 An: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Thanks Alexander. Your email shows why a one-ICANN-size does not fit all. I’m not sure what free speech is, or is not, like in Berlin. None of the other three examples you use (assuming you are referring to the US cities of Denver, Dallas and Chicago) would be permitted under the First Amenment to restrain speech by insisting no one else could apply for .Denver, .Dallas, or .Chicago (and culturally, even if it was permitted, the people of Dallas certainly, and perhaps even the people of Denver, would never go for such a restriction). So while Berlin may fall squarely into the paradigm you would like ICANN to adopt, the other 75% of your examples do not. Likewise, having ICANN start down the path of free speech curtailment in large city names does lead to the problem of ICANN getting involved in the “who deserves it” business – your very poignant example of Berlin v Belarus v Azerbaijan shows just how messy that can be. The compromise struck in the last round – protecting capital cities – was a major concession by the free speech crowd within ICANN. As your email makes clear, expanding that concession to even more cities will be incredibly complex and will inevitably curtail speech that otherwise would be granted to some if ICANN didn’t go down this path. I think it is time for us to come to grips that ICANN simply can’t be a supranational legislator. Please keep in mind that for those who want to work with cities to develop a market for second levels in those city names, there is no prohibition against them going to those cities and working with the cities to apply as community applications, which applications would trump a garden variety non-community application. The problem you are trying to address has already been solved. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:49 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. To add to this thought: We are grossly INCONSISTENT with the protection levels that we are establishing. Right now we claim a country can NOT be allowed to support an application for their 3-letter code or country name within the gNSO policy framework – because we need to protect the country from “harm”. We are BANNING all these strings completely! But sizeable cities: anything goes, and thanks to the non-geo use provision: no protections whatsoever! Now let’s compare countries and cities (and obviously I am doing this since 2006 A LOT – when I lobbied with Dirk for .berlin to come into existence): A city like Berlin has 3.5 Million people in the city limits, and roughly 5.5 Million in the metro area. Compared to countries: * 50% of all countries are smaller than the Berlin metro area * Still over 100 countries are smaller than Berlin within its city limits * 63 countries (more than 25%) have populations under 1 Million people! So indeed: a Million inhabitant city is just population-wise at least as important and impacting as more than a quarter of all countries. BUT: if you look at a city like Berlin (or Denver, Dallas, Chicago): we aren’t just comparing population size! We are talking about domain name spaces, gTLDs! In that respect we ought to factor in the Internet penetration, the GDP and number of businesses (because they need domains – and Internet users will utilize these domains to find the businesses), cultural and political importance, etc. If you factor all this in, and compare Berlin to Belarus (a country I truly admire, beautiful capital, our southern neighbor) or Azerbaijan (each of both have 10 million people): Berlin uses WAY MORE domain names than these both. So suddenly a Million people city in an industrialized nation probably plays in the top 60% of countries – domain name usage wise. I am wrapping my head around cities and gTLDs for probably way too long (14 years). But most of the times I observe that most people just don’t understand how HYPER IMPORTANT cities are as an organizational entity in the personal and business life of people. We are totally overprotecting country-geo-entities; but seemingly have no problem whatsoever that via the “non-geo use” loophole everybody and their greed grandma could snag up city based gTLDs en masse. I think we either scrap the non-geo use provision altogether (which I personally do NOT support at all); or we at least elevate SIZEABLE cities to the same protection level as country subdivisions (these are by the way are often quite unknown, un-impacting and typically relatively small population-wise. Inconsistent.) And as the brand-cloud seemingly today admitted: there are ZERO “curative” rights in the case of a city-supported application vs. a brand application. It’s “big bucks win”. I am consulting companies in regard to domain acquisition since 21 years now (started in 1997) – and let me tell you: contrary to the picture painted here in another message; most of the larger brands have no problems to slap several Million Dollars on a domain asset; if they really want it. No chance for a city constituent, non-profit public benefit entity to survive at all. But my bigger concern are VC capital infused portfolio applicants who are simply applying for dozens of city names – declaring non-geo use. Obviously city supported applications do currently NOT “top” non-geo use applications; and what then? They city supported applicant is likely non-profit AND had likely to make concessions to the city. Their business plan is much weaker – as they strive to be public-benefit and all. How can they win an auction against VC funded applicants? The city gTLD process as we have set it up is HEAVELY stacked against the type of applicant that we always wanted to see: A good actor, public benefit, community supported, community owned & funded, non-profit, etc. Unfair, not in the interest of the Internet user or the city constituents, not in sync with ICANN’s mandate. All we are asking for is to require city support for city name applications if the city is really BIG (in comparison to for example countries). And if that cut-off size were a Million people. VC money will likely not go for cities with less than a Million people – the registrar channel won’t sell enough domains to sustain the application. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 9:10 AM Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Sorry Greg, no intention to be prejudicial. I am not arguing that the non-geo use clause be closed entirely. I am suggesting that it not be available in the case of very large cities. If we are talking about cities of 1M people, that's about 500-600 cities, defined by an authoritative list we agree on. A good number will already be reserved as capital cities. The word inventory makes it sound huge, like thousands of names are involved. That's not the case. It is very limited. I don't see that as an unreasonable compromise. Marita On 8/20/2018 1:20 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: I object to calling this feature a “loophole.” That is both prejudicial and incorrect as well. What we have is a reasonable limit on the Consent right that was given to non-capitol cities in the prior round. From an end-user perspective, there is no presumption that a geo-use is superior to any other possible use of a given string. From a city perspective, nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a city to apply for a string related to their city name. We are just not reserving numerous possibilities exclusively for their choice when or if they look into the idea of a TLD. And we are not reserving “inventory” for private businesses that consult in the geo-name space. That would truly be outside our remit. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants. It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest. I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world. Marita On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear WT, Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money. And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand. Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective: People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue). I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s). I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them. And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern. But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF. Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples: • A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”? o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them. • A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here! o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE! City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries? We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc). Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in? We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia><mailto:edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Fr...>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffile%2Ffield-file-attach%2Fannex-1-&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=5tPAZsMtAaecqOOYth%2BEcK8kT6NWj2haeKX5mFCx8l8%3D&reserved=0> gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.o...>] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=kz5Qlv8ZjaZhnl1iW5r8McZZa7dV8dcpcGhz%2FEM%2BlBc%3D&reserved=0>> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=v7ThLOQt1htQue6J7xGxpXkozzUW7CBijolY9kr58Vg%3D&reserved=0>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ 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
+1 Kind regards, Sanna Sahlman (.fi) -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH Sent: 21. elokuuta 2018 15:12 To: Ann-Cathrin Marcussen; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. +1 Kind regards Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting www.dotzon.consulting DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Ann-Cathrin Marcussen Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 13:00 An: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. + 1 from me also. Best regards / Med vennlig hilsen Ann-Cathrin Marcussen Head of Legal UNINETT Norid AS 7465 Trondheim Oslokontor St Olavs Plass 2 0165 Oslo Mobil +47 920 14 282 acm@norid.no 21. aug. 2018 kl. 12:55 skrev Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>: +1 from me on this, this seemed a good compromise solution for capital cities, names of cities where the application was intended to represent the people of the city plus the sub-national names As can be seen by the successful delegations from the 2012 round (if we can smooth that process as Jorge suggests then even better) If it isn’t broken then let’s not try to fix it, there are other areas such as the non-AGB2012 geo terms for which we don’t have any solution at present From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: 21 August 2018 07:39 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. The beauty of the current system (the non-objection letter) is that it implies a system of subsidiarity. In countries where (for whatever reasons) local authorities have no rights, policies whatsoever, they will have to abide by that framework and respond that they have no-objection. Otherwise they would be breaking the law. In those countries where there are rights, policies or whatsoever that allow a local authority to intervene regarding their names/identifiers, they will have to follow the law when providing the letter of non-objection, setting condition or even denying it. So, with the 2012 AGB the ICANN actually applied a principle of subsidiarity here, without trying to impose a “one-size-fits all” approach, but allowing for different local approaches. In general, as local authorities are bound by law, their actions can be subject to review. As to potential tardiness or absence of reply: as we have discussed, the new AGB could provide for deadlines for responses by the local government; it may even provide for an implied non-objection if there is no response within the deadline; and there can be even a mediation process being established in case the applicant does not agree with the decision from the local authority… Best regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > Im Auftrag von McGrady, Paul D. Gesendet: Montag, 20. August 2018 17:11 An: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> ; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Thanks Alexander. Your email shows why a one-ICANN-size does not fit all. I’m not sure what free speech is, or is not, like in Berlin. None of the other three examples you use (assuming you are referring to the US cities of Denver, Dallas and Chicago) would be permitted under the First Amenment to restrain speech by insisting no one else could apply for .Denver, .Dallas, or .Chicago (and culturally, even if it was permitted, the people of Dallas certainly, and perhaps even the people of Denver, would never go for such a restriction). So while Berlin may fall squarely into the paradigm you would like ICANN to adopt, the other 75% of your examples do not. Likewise, having ICANN start down the path of free speech curtailment in large city names does lead to the problem of ICANN getting involved in the “who deserves it” business – your very poignant example of Berlin v Belarus v Azerbaijan shows just how messy that can be. The compromise struck in the last round – protecting capital cities – was a major concession by the free speech crowd within ICANN. As your email makes clear, expanding that concession to even more cities will be incredibly complex and will inevitably curtail speech that otherwise would be granted to some if ICANN didn’t go down this path. I think it is time for us to come to grips that ICANN simply can’t be a supranational legislator. Please keep in mind that for those who want to work with cities to develop a market for second levels in those city names, there is no prohibition against them going to those cities and working with the cities to apply as community applications, which applications would trump a garden variety non-community application. The problem you are trying to address has already been solved. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:49 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. To add to this thought: We are grossly INCONSISTENT with the protection levels that we are establishing. Right now we claim a country can NOT be allowed to support an application for their 3-letter code or country name within the gNSO policy framework – because we need to protect the country from “harm”. We are BANNING all these strings completely! But sizeable cities: anything goes, and thanks to the non-geo use provision: no protections whatsoever! Now let’s compare countries and cities (and obviously I am doing this since 2006 A LOT – when I lobbied with Dirk for .berlin to come into existence): A city like Berlin has 3.5 Million people in the city limits, and roughly 5.5 Million in the metro area. Compared to countries: * 50% of all countries are smaller than the Berlin metro area * Still over 100 countries are smaller than Berlin within its city limits * 63 countries (more than 25%) have populations under 1 Million people! So indeed: a Million inhabitant city is just population-wise at least as important and impacting as more than a quarter of all countries. BUT: if you look at a city like Berlin (or Denver, Dallas, Chicago): we aren’t just comparing population size! We are talking about domain name spaces, gTLDs! In that respect we ought to factor in the Internet penetration, the GDP and number of businesses (because they need domains – and Internet users will utilize these domains to find the businesses), cultural and political importance, etc. If you factor all this in, and compare Berlin to Belarus (a country I truly admire, beautiful capital, our southern neighbor) or Azerbaijan (each of both have 10 million people): Berlin uses WAY MORE domain names than these both. So suddenly a Million people city in an industrialized nation probably plays in the top 60% of countries – domain name usage wise. I am wrapping my head around cities and gTLDs for probably way too long (14 years). But most of the times I observe that most people just don’t understand how HYPER IMPORTANT cities are as an organizational entity in the personal and business life of people. We are totally overprotecting country-geo-entities; but seemingly have no problem whatsoever that via the “non-geo use” loophole everybody and their greed grandma could snag up city based gTLDs en masse. I think we either scrap the non-geo use provision altogether (which I personally do NOT support at all); or we at least elevate SIZEABLE cities to the same protection level as country subdivisions (these are by the way are often quite unknown, un-impacting and typically relatively small population-wise. Inconsistent.) And as the brand-cloud seemingly today admitted: there are ZERO “curative” rights in the case of a city-supported application vs. a brand application. It’s “big bucks win”. I am consulting companies in regard to domain acquisition since 21 years now (started in 1997) – and let me tell you: contrary to the picture painted here in another message; most of the larger brands have no problems to slap several Million Dollars on a domain asset; if they really want it. No chance for a city constituent, non-profit public benefit entity to survive at all. But my bigger concern are VC capital infused portfolio applicants who are simply applying for dozens of city names – declaring non-geo use. Obviously city supported applications do currently NOT “top” non-geo use applications; and what then? They city supported applicant is likely non-profit AND had likely to make concessions to the city. Their business plan is much weaker – as they strive to be public-benefit and all. How can they win an auction against VC funded applicants? The city gTLD process as we have set it up is HEAVELY stacked against the type of applicant that we always wanted to see: A good actor, public benefit, community supported, community owned & funded, non-profit, etc. Unfair, not in the interest of the Internet user or the city constituents, not in sync with ICANN’s mandate. All we are asking for is to require city support for city name applications if the city is really BIG (in comparison to for example countries). And if that cut-off size were a Million people. VC money will likely not go for cities with less than a Million people – the registrar channel won’t sell enough domains to sustain the application. 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 Marita Moll Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 9:10 AM Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Sorry Greg, no intention to be prejudicial. I am not arguing that the non-geo use clause be closed entirely. I am suggesting that it not be available in the case of very large cities. If we are talking about cities of 1M people, that's about 500-600 cities, defined by an authoritative list we agree on. A good number will already be reserved as capital cities. The word inventory makes it sound huge, like thousands of names are involved. That's not the case. It is very limited. I don't see that as an unreasonable compromise. Marita On 8/20/2018 1:20 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: I object to calling this feature a “loophole.” That is both prejudicial and incorrect as well. What we have is a reasonable limit on the Consent right that was given to non-capitol cities in the prior round. From an end-user perspective, there is no presumption that a geo-use is superior to any other possible use of a given string. From a city perspective, nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a city to apply for a string related to their city name. We are just not reserving numerous possibilities exclusively for their choice when or if they look into the idea of a TLD. And we are not reserving “inventory” for private businesses that consult in the geo-name space. That would truly be outside our remit. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> > wrote: I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants. It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest. I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world. Marita On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear WT, Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money. And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand. Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective: People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue). I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s). I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them. And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern. But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF. Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples: · A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”? o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them. · A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here! o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE! City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries? We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc). Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in? We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention. 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 Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> <mailto:edmon@dot.asia> ; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> > wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk <mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> > wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia> > Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia> > wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> > Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > 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> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: > Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos, > > I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check > ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Fr...> ) cemented the one and only real differentiator > in the DNS: > That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be > deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two > character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs. > > If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) > BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character > gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway. > > The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be > uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs). > > Thanks, > > Alexander > > > > Sent from my Samsung device > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> > > Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) > To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> > > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call > on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. > > Hi Carlos > > Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some > 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically > be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had > from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs? > > Kind regards, > Annebeth > > > Annebeth B Lange > Special Adviser International Policy > UNINETT Norid AS > Phone: +47 959 11 559 > Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> > > > > 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < > carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> >: > > My comments to today's call: > > 1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process > should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested > parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and > territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a > forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if > it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW > suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How > about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, > such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future > countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL > two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if > it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential > combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I > can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could > tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to > move forward. > > 2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo > names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear > rationale is added to the recommendation > > > 3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion > has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and > other social elements, ,like Apache Nation > > > Best regards > > > > --- > Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez > carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> > +506 8837 7176 > Aparatado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > > > El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió: > > Dear Work Track members, > > > > Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations > shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes > clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more > substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call. > > > > Kind regards, > > Emily > > > > *From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > on > behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > > *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 > *To: *"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> > > *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call > on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. > > > > Dear Work Track members, > > > > Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 > August at 13:00 UTC: > > > > 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates > 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan > 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names > 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms > 5. AOB > > > > On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed > at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of > September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to > ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work > of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for > delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached. > > > > As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series > of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial > Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of > recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft > recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work > Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft > recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will > officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's > call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be > followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: > https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1- <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann....> > gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.o...> ] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....> > > . > > > > If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an > apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> . > > > > Kind regards, > > > > WT5 Co-Leads > > Annebeth Lange > > Javier Rua > > Olga Cavalli > > Martin Sutton > > > > > > > > > > > > The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely > for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged > information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not > the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message > has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by > reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are > not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, > dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is > strictly prohibited. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> > > <Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf> > > <Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx> > > _______________________________________________ > 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> > _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ 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>
Jorge, This is an incorrect description of the current system, which seems to have no basis in fact. I just re-read Section 2.2.1 of the AGB to see if I was missing something. I found nothing. However, I do think your email does suggest intriguing possibilities for how things might work — it just doesn’t reflect how things actually work now. The AGB doesn’t require a government to explain the basis for their letter of government support or non-objection, or the source of their power to grant it or deny it. It is entirely up to the “relevant government or public authority” to determine whether it has the right to respond, and if they think they can, they will. I don’t recall a single government or “relevant authority” turning away a request for support or non-objection because they seemed to be the right authority but in fact were not empowered to consider the request. You describe a situation that probably doesn’t exist — a local authority with “no rights, policies whatsoever” that is thus helpless to respond. That seems at odds with being an “authority,” whether established by rule of law or by brute force. If the local authority feels it can respond, it will respond. In the far-fetched situation where a local authority cannot consider a letter of support based on the framework of the country’s laws, then they are simply not the “relevant” authority and they become irrelevant. A higher level of government almost certainly has that authority. For your hypothetical to work, we would need to find a country where the “authorities” at every level felt powerless to respond. I doubt this exists. On top of this, you speculate that there is a “law” an authority would “break” if provided a letter of support unless there were “rights and Olivier” that “allowed” them to do so. What specific “law” do you think they would be “breaking”? What “framework” do you think they would have to “abide by”? (Real world examples, please.) You also get the basic concept upside-down when you speculate that an authority without rights or policies would somehow be forced to respond that they have no objection. What power do they have to formally issue a letter of non-objection? None. If the authority doesn’t have the power to object that will not get you a letter of non-objection. The authority simply has no authority to respond either way, and the applicant will be stuck without a letter, until it finds the “relevant authority.” Where a local authority is “allowed” to respond (which I suspect is virtually 100% of the time), I highly doubt it comes from specific “rights, policies or whatsoever,” about TLD support letters. More likely it comes from some more general law or laws empowering the local authority. So, we are unlikely to find the specific law you believe exists and that a local authority would have to “follow” when providing or not providing the letter of support. Essentially, it is at the discretion of the relevant authority, on any basis that they see fit. It’s only slightly less far-fetched to suggest that a government’s action relating to a letter request would be subject to review. Hypothetically, perhaps. But since there is no requirement that the government explain the basis for their authority or the basis for their decisions, there is unlikely to be any basis for review — unless one challenges the basic authority of the government to govern as it sees fit. Not likely to happen. So there really is no principle of “subsidiarity” here — except the principle that ICANN and every other possible applicant for a relevant string should be subsidiary to every government and relevant authority, and to decisions made at their sole discretion. If there is any “beauty” in the current system, it is in the eye of the beholder — and the beholder better like the exercise of unfettered discretion. I’m quite surprised that anyone “+1”-ed this flawed description and argument, but I suppose they did so because they liked the result and not because they found the analysis to be accurate. This is really at odds with “fact-based” decision making. We’re not going to get anywhere if we have to spend time dealing with “alternative facts.” Sad! Best regards, Greg On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:39 AM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
The beauty of the current system (the non-objection letter) is that it implies a system of subsidiarity. In countries where (for whatever reasons) local authorities have no rights, policies whatsoever, they will have to abide by that framework and respond that they have no-objection. Otherwise they would be breaking the law.
In those countries where there are rights, policies or whatsoever that allow a local authority to intervene regarding their names/identifiers, they will have to follow the law when providing the letter of non-objection, setting condition or even denying it.
So, with the 2012 AGB the ICANN actually applied a principle of subsidiarity here, without trying to impose a “one-size-fits all” approach, but allowing for different local approaches.
In general, as local authorities are bound by law, their actions can be subject to review.
As to potential tardiness or absence of reply: as we have discussed, the new AGB could provide for deadlines for responses by the local government; it may even provide for an implied non-objection if there is no response within the deadline; and there can be even a mediation process being established in case the applicant does not agree with the decision from the local authority…
Best regards
Jorge
*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> *Im Auftrag von *McGrady, Paul D. *Gesendet:* Montag, 20. August 2018 17:11 *An:* alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Thanks Alexander. Your email shows why a one-ICANN-size does not fit all.
I’m not sure what free speech is, or is not, like in Berlin. None of the other three examples you use (assuming you are referring to the US cities of Denver, Dallas and Chicago) would be permitted under the First Amenment to restrain speech by insisting no one else could apply for .Denver, .Dallas, or .Chicago (and culturally, even if it was permitted, the people of Dallas certainly, and perhaps even the people of Denver, would never go for such a restriction). So while Berlin may fall squarely into the paradigm you would like ICANN to adopt, the other 75% of your examples do not.
Likewise, having ICANN start down the path of free speech curtailment in large city names does lead to the problem of ICANN getting involved in the “who deserves it” business – your very poignant example of Berlin v Belarus v Azerbaijan shows just how messy that can be.
The compromise struck in the last round – protecting capital cities – was a major concession by the free speech crowd within ICANN. As your email makes clear, expanding that concession to even more cities will be incredibly complex and will inevitably curtail speech that otherwise would be granted to some if ICANN didn’t go down this path. I think it is time for us to come to grips that ICANN simply can’t be a supranational legislator. Please keep in mind that for those who want to work with cities to develop a market for second levels in those city names, there is no prohibition against them going to those cities and working with the cities to apply as community applications, which applications would trump a garden variety non-community application. The problem you are trying to address has already been solved.
Best,
Paul
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Alexander Schubert *Sent:* Monday, August 20, 2018 8:49 AM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
To add to this thought:
We are grossly INCONSISTENT with the protection levels that we are establishing. Right now we claim a country can NOT be allowed to support an application for their 3-letter code or country name within the gNSO policy framework – because we need to protect the country from “harm”. We are BANNING all these strings completely! But sizeable cities: anything goes, and thanks to the non-geo use provision: no protections whatsoever!
Now let’s compare countries and cities (and obviously I am doing this since 2006 A LOT – when I lobbied with Dirk for .berlin to come into existence):
A city like Berlin has 3.5 Million people in the city limits, and roughly 5.5 Million in the metro area. Compared to countries:
· 50% of all countries are smaller than the Berlin metro area
· Still over 100 countries are smaller than Berlin within its city limits
· 63 countries (more than 25%) have populations under 1 Million people!
So indeed: a Million inhabitant city is just population-wise at least as important and impacting as more than a quarter of all countries. BUT: if you look at a city like Berlin (or Denver, Dallas, Chicago): we aren’t just comparing population size! We are talking about domain name spaces, gTLDs! In that respect we ought to factor in the Internet penetration, the GDP and number of businesses (because they need domains – and Internet users will utilize these domains to find the businesses), cultural and political importance, etc. If you factor all this in, and compare Berlin to Belarus (a country I truly admire, beautiful capital, our southern neighbor) or Azerbaijan (each of both have 10 million people): Berlin uses WAY MORE domain names than these both. So suddenly a Million people city in an industrialized nation probably plays in the top 60% of countries – domain name usage wise.
I am wrapping my head around cities and gTLDs for probably way too long (14 years). But most of the times I observe that most people just don’t understand how HYPER IMPORTANT cities are as an organizational entity in the personal and business life of people. We are totally overprotecting country-geo-entities; but seemingly have no problem whatsoever that via the “non-geo use” loophole everybody and their greed grandma could snag up city based gTLDs en masse.
I think we either scrap the non-geo use provision altogether (which I personally do NOT support at all); or we at least elevate SIZEABLE cities to the same protection level as country subdivisions (these are by the way are often quite unknown, un-impacting and typically relatively small population-wise. Inconsistent.)
And as the brand-cloud seemingly today admitted: there are ZERO “curative” rights in the case of a city-supported application vs. a brand application. It’s “big bucks win”. I am consulting companies in regard to domain acquisition since 21 years now (started in 1997) – and let me tell you: contrary to the picture painted here in another message; most of the larger brands have no problems to slap several Million Dollars on a domain asset; if they really want it. No chance for a city constituent, non-profit public benefit entity to survive at all. But my bigger concern are VC capital infused portfolio applicants who are simply applying for dozens of city names – declaring non-geo use. Obviously city supported applications do currently NOT “top” non-geo use applications; and what then? They city supported applicant is likely non-profit AND had likely to make concessions to the city. Their business plan is much weaker – as they strive to be public-benefit and all. How can they win an auction against VC funded applicants?
The city gTLD process as we have set it up is HEAVELY stacked against the type of applicant that we always wanted to see: A good actor, public benefit, community supported, community owned & funded, non-profit, etc.
Unfair, not in the interest of the Internet user or the city constituents, not in sync with ICANN’s mandate. All we are asking for is to require city support for city name applications if the city is really BIG (in comparison to for example countries). And if that cut-off size were a Million people. VC money will likely not go for cities with less than a Million people – the registrar channel won’t sell enough domains to sustain the application.
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Marita Moll *Sent:* Monday, August 20, 2018 9:10 AM *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Sorry Greg, no intention to be prejudicial. I am not arguing that the non-geo use clause be closed entirely. I am suggesting that it not be available in the case of very large cities. If we are talking about cities of 1M people, that's about 500-600 cities, defined by an authoritative list we agree on. A good number will already be reserved as capital cities.
The word inventory makes it sound huge, like thousands of names are involved. That's not the case. It is very limited. I don't see that as an unreasonable compromise.
Marita
On 8/20/2018 1:20 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
I object to calling this feature a “loophole.” That is both prejudicial and incorrect as well. What we have is a reasonable limit on the Consent right that was given to non-capitol cities in the prior round.
From an end-user perspective, there is no presumption that a geo-use is superior to any other possible use of a given string.
From a city perspective, nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a city to apply for a string related to their city name. We are just not reserving numerous possibilities exclusively for their choice when or if they look into the idea of a TLD. And we are not reserving “inventory” for private businesses that consult in the geo-name space. That would truly be outside our remit.
Best regards,
Greg
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants.
It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest.
I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world.
Marita
On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear WT,
Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money.
And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand.
Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective:
People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue).
I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s).
I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them.
And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern.
But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF.
*Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity*. Examples:
· A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”?
o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them.
· A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here!
o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE!
City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries?
We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc).
Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in?
We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention.
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Arasteh *Sent:* Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> <mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Cc:* Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> <edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear All
Yes they are valuable for those countries too
There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes
Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution
Regards
Kavouss .
Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list.
It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...>
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith < Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> wrote:
Hi Mike
Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’.
Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies.
If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there.
I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses.
Best wishes
Nick
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* 10 August 2018 03:35 *To:* Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> *Cc:* leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."
Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...>
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> wrote:
IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon
-------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...>
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Fr...>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1- <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann....>
gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.o...> ] < https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....>
.
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
------------------------------
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear Greg I wonder what your experience with authorities is... At least in the countries I‘m familiar with they are obliged to answer any request filed with them. The answer has to be normally within a deadline and the decision has to be motivated (at least minimally). And if the decision affects rights or interests it is generally subject to review. Those are requirements stemming from rule of law requirements, not from the AGB certainly 😉 As to „relevant“: if the name of the string has a connection with the authority that would make it IMO relevant at least for filing the application (eg a city government for a city string matching its name). Systems for identifying the right authority could be improved, the GAC members could help more, the advisory geonames panel could... As to real-world examples perhaps others may help, but considering jurisdictions I know, in Switzerland it would be the authority who had a right under article 29 Civil Code on the corresponding string. If asked the authority would need to respond respecting the requirements mentioned above (obligation to respond, motivate, etc.). Following the argument of Paul, and assuming rule of law applies similarly, I would have thought that if a local authority in the US was asked it would have to respond that they have no basis under US law to interfere with the application, because (if Paul is right) they would be breaking the first amendment. Hence, the implied subsidiarity allows different local law/policy systems work, without imposing one model to all... Finally, as I said, everything is perfectible, and we can improve the current system, which has been (according to the known facts) a wide success - probably a reason for the many signs of support to these arguments from various SO/AC members... Best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Datum: 22. August 2018 um 01:43:39 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Jorge, This is an incorrect description of the current system, which seems to have no basis in fact. I just re-read Section 2.2.1 of the AGB to see if I was missing something. I found nothing. However, I do think your email does suggest intriguing possibilities for how things might work — it just doesn’t reflect how things actually work now. The AGB doesn’t require a government to explain the basis for their letter of government support or non-objection, or the source of their power to grant it or deny it. It is entirely up to the “relevant government or public authority” to determine whether it has the right to respond, and if they think they can, they will. I don’t recall a single government or “relevant authority” turning away a request for support or non-objection because they seemed to be the right authority but in fact were not empowered to consider the request. You describe a situation that probably doesn’t exist — a local authority with “no rights, policies whatsoever” that is thus helpless to respond. That seems at odds with being an “authority,” whether established by rule of law or by brute force. If the local authority feels it can respond, it will respond. In the far-fetched situation where a local authority cannot consider a letter of support based on the framework of the country’s laws, then they are simply not the “relevant” authority and they become irrelevant. A higher level of government almost certainly has that authority. For your hypothetical to work, we would need to find a country where the “authorities” at every level felt powerless to respond. I doubt this exists. On top of this, you speculate that there is a “law” an authority would “break” if provided a letter of support unless there were “rights and Olivier” that “allowed” them to do so. What specific “law” do you think they would be “breaking”? What “framework” do you think they would have to “abide by”? (Real world examples, please.) You also get the basic concept upside-down when you speculate that an authority without rights or policies would somehow be forced to respond that they have no objection. What power do they have to formally issue a letter of non-objection? None. If the authority doesn’t have the power to object that will not get you a letter of non-objection. The authority simply has no authority to respond either way, and the applicant will be stuck without a letter, until it finds the “relevant authority.” Where a local authority is “allowed” to respond (which I suspect is virtually 100% of the time), I highly doubt it comes from specific “rights, policies or whatsoever,” about TLD support letters. More likely it comes from some more general law or laws empowering the local authority. So, we are unlikely to find the specific law you believe exists and that a local authority would have to “follow” when providing or not providing the letter of support. Essentially, it is at the discretion of the relevant authority, on any basis that they see fit. It’s only slightly less far-fetched to suggest that a government’s action relating to a letter request would be subject to review. Hypothetically, perhaps. But since there is no requirement that the government explain the basis for their authority or the basis for their decisions, there is unlikely to be any basis for review — unless one challenges the basic authority of the government to govern as it sees fit. Not likely to happen. So there really is no principle of “subsidiarity” here — except the principle that ICANN and every other possible applicant for a relevant string should be subsidiary to every government and relevant authority, and to decisions made at their sole discretion. If there is any “beauty” in the current system, it is in the eye of the beholder — and the beholder better like the exercise of unfettered discretion. I’m quite surprised that anyone “+1”-ed this flawed description and argument, but I suppose they did so because they liked the result and not because they found the analysis to be accurate. This is really at odds with “fact-based” decision making. We’re not going to get anywhere if we have to spend time dealing with “alternative facts.” Sad! Best regards, Greg On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:39 AM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: The beauty of the current system (the non-objection letter) is that it implies a system of subsidiarity. In countries where (for whatever reasons) local authorities have no rights, policies whatsoever, they will have to abide by that framework and respond that they have no-objection. Otherwise they would be breaking the law. In those countries where there are rights, policies or whatsoever that allow a local authority to intervene regarding their names/identifiers, they will have to follow the law when providing the letter of non-objection, setting condition or even denying it. So, with the 2012 AGB the ICANN actually applied a principle of subsidiarity here, without trying to impose a “one-size-fits all” approach, but allowing for different local approaches. In general, as local authorities are bound by law, their actions can be subject to review. As to potential tardiness or absence of reply: as we have discussed, the new AGB could provide for deadlines for responses by the local government; it may even provide for an implied non-objection if there is no response within the deadline; and there can be even a mediation process being established in case the applicant does not agree with the decision from the local authority… Best regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von McGrady, Paul D. Gesendet: Montag, 20. August 2018 17:11 An: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Thanks Alexander. Your email shows why a one-ICANN-size does not fit all. I’m not sure what free speech is, or is not, like in Berlin. None of the other three examples you use (assuming you are referring to the US cities of Denver, Dallas and Chicago) would be permitted under the First Amenment to restrain speech by insisting no one else could apply for .Denver, .Dallas, or .Chicago (and culturally, even if it was permitted, the people of Dallas certainly, and perhaps even the people of Denver, would never go for such a restriction). So while Berlin may fall squarely into the paradigm you would like ICANN to adopt, the other 75% of your examples do not. Likewise, having ICANN start down the path of free speech curtailment in large city names does lead to the problem of ICANN getting involved in the “who deserves it” business – your very poignant example of Berlin v Belarus v Azerbaijan shows just how messy that can be. The compromise struck in the last round – protecting capital cities – was a major concession by the free speech crowd within ICANN. As your email makes clear, expanding that concession to even more cities will be incredibly complex and will inevitably curtail speech that otherwise would be granted to some if ICANN didn’t go down this path. I think it is time for us to come to grips that ICANN simply can’t be a supranational legislator. Please keep in mind that for those who want to work with cities to develop a market for second levels in those city names, there is no prohibition against them going to those cities and working with the cities to apply as community applications, which applications would trump a garden variety non-community application. The problem you are trying to address has already been solved. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:49 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. To add to this thought: We are grossly INCONSISTENT with the protection levels that we are establishing. Right now we claim a country can NOT be allowed to support an application for their 3-letter code or country name within the gNSO policy framework – because we need to protect the country from “harm”. We are BANNING all these strings completely! But sizeable cities: anything goes, and thanks to the non-geo use provision: no protections whatsoever! Now let’s compare countries and cities (and obviously I am doing this since 2006 A LOT – when I lobbied with Dirk for .berlin to come into existence): A city like Berlin has 3.5 Million people in the city limits, and roughly 5.5 Million in the metro area. Compared to countries: • 50% of all countries are smaller than the Berlin metro area • Still over 100 countries are smaller than Berlin within its city limits • 63 countries (more than 25%) have populations under 1 Million people! So indeed: a Million inhabitant city is just population-wise at least as important and impacting as more than a quarter of all countries. BUT: if you look at a city like Berlin (or Denver, Dallas, Chicago): we aren’t just comparing population size! We are talking about domain name spaces, gTLDs! In that respect we ought to factor in the Internet penetration, the GDP and number of businesses (because they need domains – and Internet users will utilize these domains to find the businesses), cultural and political importance, etc. If you factor all this in, and compare Berlin to Belarus (a country I truly admire, beautiful capital, our southern neighbor) or Azerbaijan (each of both have 10 million people): Berlin uses WAY MORE domain names than these both. So suddenly a Million people city in an industrialized nation probably plays in the top 60% of countries – domain name usage wise. I am wrapping my head around cities and gTLDs for probably way too long (14 years). But most of the times I observe that most people just don’t understand how HYPER IMPORTANT cities are as an organizational entity in the personal and business life of people. We are totally overprotecting country-geo-entities; but seemingly have no problem whatsoever that via the “non-geo use” loophole everybody and their greed grandma could snag up city based gTLDs en masse. I think we either scrap the non-geo use provision altogether (which I personally do NOT support at all); or we at least elevate SIZEABLE cities to the same protection level as country subdivisions (these are by the way are often quite unknown, un-impacting and typically relatively small population-wise. Inconsistent.) And as the brand-cloud seemingly today admitted: there are ZERO “curative” rights in the case of a city-supported application vs. a brand application. It’s “big bucks win”. I am consulting companies in regard to domain acquisition since 21 years now (started in 1997) – and let me tell you: contrary to the picture painted here in another message; most of the larger brands have no problems to slap several Million Dollars on a domain asset; if they really want it. No chance for a city constituent, non-profit public benefit entity to survive at all. But my bigger concern are VC capital infused portfolio applicants who are simply applying for dozens of city names – declaring non-geo use. Obviously city supported applications do currently NOT “top” non-geo use applications; and what then? They city supported applicant is likely non-profit AND had likely to make concessions to the city. Their business plan is much weaker – as they strive to be public-benefit and all. How can they win an auction against VC funded applicants? The city gTLD process as we have set it up is HEAVELY stacked against the type of applicant that we always wanted to see: A good actor, public benefit, community supported, community owned & funded, non-profit, etc. Unfair, not in the interest of the Internet user or the city constituents, not in sync with ICANN’s mandate. All we are asking for is to require city support for city name applications if the city is really BIG (in comparison to for example countries). And if that cut-off size were a Million people. VC money will likely not go for cities with less than a Million people – the registrar channel won’t sell enough domains to sustain the application. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 9:10 AM Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Sorry Greg, no intention to be prejudicial. I am not arguing that the non-geo use clause be closed entirely. I am suggesting that it not be available in the case of very large cities. If we are talking about cities of 1M people, that's about 500-600 cities, defined by an authoritative list we agree on. A good number will already be reserved as capital cities. The word inventory makes it sound huge, like thousands of names are involved. That's not the case. It is very limited. I don't see that as an unreasonable compromise. Marita On 8/20/2018 1:20 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: I object to calling this feature a “loophole.” That is both prejudicial and incorrect as well. What we have is a reasonable limit on the Consent right that was given to non-capitol cities in the prior round. From an end-user perspective, there is no presumption that a geo-use is superior to any other possible use of a given string. From a city perspective, nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a city to apply for a string related to their city name. We are just not reserving numerous possibilities exclusively for their choice when or if they look into the idea of a TLD. And we are not reserving “inventory” for private businesses that consult in the geo-name space. That would truly be outside our remit. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants. It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest. I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world. Marita On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear WT, Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money. And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand. Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective: People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue). I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s). I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them. And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern. But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF. Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples: • A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”? o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them. • A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here! o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE! City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries? We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc). Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in? We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia><mailto:edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Fr...>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffile%2Ffield-file-attach%2Fannex-1-&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=5tPAZsMtAaecqOOYth%2BEcK8kT6NWj2haeKX5mFCx8l8%3D&reserved=0> gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.o...>] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=kz5Qlv8ZjaZhnl1iW5r8McZZa7dV8dcpcGhz%2FEM%2BlBc%3D&reserved=0>> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=v7ThLOQt1htQue6J7xGxpXkozzUW7CBijolY9kr58Vg%3D&reserved=0>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ 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
Jorge, In my day job, I have plenty of experience with authorities, though not from the inside. You seem to have missed my point. At no point did I raise any issue about whether or not an authority would be obliged to respond to a request for a letter of support. In any case, your "examples" are just general speculation of what might happen. Some "real world" experiences from the prior round would be useful. From the letters of support or non-objection I have seen, there was no indication of any "requirements" being followed, right of review, etc. I'm not going to assume facts that are not in evidence. It's interesting to know that Swiss authorities are obligated to respond to every request they receive and within a deadline. I suppose that is consistent with the Swiss reputation for precision. I'm not aware of any such requirements for the authorities with which I am familiar. The most useful part of your email was the revelation of where you got the idea that "In countries where (for whatever reasons) local authorities have no rights, policies whatsoever, they will have to abide by that framework and respond that they have no-objection. Otherwise they would be breaking the law." I didn't recognize the origin before and I'm sure Paul wouldn't recognize it either. Suffice it to say that this bears no resemblance to First Amendment application or jurisprudence or any law with which I'm familiar. This statement is a free-floating fantasy, without any basis in U.S. law or any other law with which I am familiar. It's certainly not a description of how the system worked in the 2012 round or how any relevant authority I can think of would have considered a request for a letter of support. Of course, if there is an actual example of a relevant authority acting in this fashion in the 2012 round, it would be great to know. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 12:37 AM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Greg
I wonder what your experience with authorities is...
At least in the countries I‘m familiar with they are obliged to answer any request filed with them. The answer has to be normally within a deadline and the decision has to be motivated (at least minimally). And if the decision affects rights or interests it is generally subject to review.
Those are requirements stemming from rule of law requirements, not from the AGB certainly 😉
As to „relevant“: if the name of the string has a connection with the authority that would make it IMO relevant at least for filing the application (eg a city government for a city string matching its name). Systems for identifying the right authority could be improved, the GAC members could help more, the advisory geonames panel could...
As to real-world examples perhaps others may help, but considering jurisdictions I know, in Switzerland it would be the authority who had a right under article 29 Civil Code on the corresponding string. If asked the authority would need to respond respecting the requirements mentioned above (obligation to respond, motivate, etc.).
Following the argument of Paul, and assuming rule of law applies similarly, I would have thought that if a local authority in the US was asked it would have to respond that they have no basis under US law to interfere with the application, because (if Paul is right) they would be breaking the first amendment.
Hence, the implied subsidiarity allows different local law/policy systems work, without imposing one model to all...
Finally, as I said, everything is perfectible, and we can improve the current system, which has been (according to the known facts) a wide success - probably a reason for the many signs of support to these arguments from various SO/AC members...
Best
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Datum: 22. August 2018 um 01:43:39 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Jorge,
This is an incorrect description of the current system, which seems to have no basis in fact. I just re-read Section 2.2.1 of the AGB to see if I was missing something. I found nothing. However, I do think your email does suggest intriguing possibilities for how things might work — it just doesn’t reflect how things actually work now.
The AGB doesn’t require a government to explain the basis for their letter of government support or non-objection, or the source of their power to grant it or deny it. It is entirely up to the “relevant government or public authority” to determine whether it has the right to respond, and if they think they can, they will. I don’t recall a single government or “relevant authority” turning away a request for support or non-objection because they seemed to be the right authority but in fact were not empowered to consider the request.
You describe a situation that probably doesn’t exist — a local authority with “no rights, policies whatsoever” that is thus helpless to respond. That seems at odds with being an “authority,” whether established by rule of law or by brute force. If the local authority feels it can respond, it will respond. In the far-fetched situation where a local authority cannot consider a letter of support based on the framework of the country’s laws, then they are simply not the “relevant” authority and they become irrelevant. A higher level of government almost certainly has that authority. For your hypothetical to work, we would need to find a country where the “authorities” at every level felt powerless to respond. I doubt this exists.
On top of this, you speculate that there is a “law” an authority would “break” if provided a letter of support unless there were “rights and Olivier” that “allowed” them to do so. What specific “law” do you think they would be “breaking”? What “framework” do you think they would have to “abide by”? (Real world examples, please.)
You also get the basic concept upside-down when you speculate that an authority without rights or policies would somehow be forced to respond that they have no objection. What power do they have to formally issue a letter of non-objection? None. If the authority doesn’t have the power to object that will not get you a letter of non-objection. The authority simply has no authority to respond either way, and the applicant will be stuck without a letter, until it finds the “relevant authority.”
Where a local authority is “allowed” to respond (which I suspect is virtually 100% of the time), I highly doubt it comes from specific “rights, policies or whatsoever,” about TLD support letters. More likely it comes from some more general law or laws empowering the local authority. So, we are unlikely to find the specific law you believe exists and that a local authority would have to “follow” when providing or not providing the letter of support. Essentially, it is at the discretion of the relevant authority, on any basis that they see fit.
It’s only slightly less far-fetched to suggest that a government’s action relating to a letter request would be subject to review. Hypothetically, perhaps. But since there is no requirement that the government explain the basis for their authority or the basis for their decisions, there is unlikely to be any basis for review — unless one challenges the basic authority of the government to govern as it sees fit. Not likely to happen.
So there really is no principle of “subsidiarity” here — except the principle that ICANN and every other possible applicant for a relevant string should be subsidiary to every government and relevant authority, and to decisions made at their sole discretion. If there is any “beauty” in the current system, it is in the eye of the beholder — and the beholder better like the exercise of unfettered discretion.
I’m quite surprised that anyone “+1”-ed this flawed description and argument, but I suppose they did so because they liked the result and not because they found the analysis to be accurate. This is really at odds with “fact-based” decision making. We’re not going to get anywhere if we have to spend time dealing with “alternative facts.” Sad!
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:39 AM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: The beauty of the current system (the non-objection letter) is that it implies a system of subsidiarity. In countries where (for whatever reasons) local authorities have no rights, policies whatsoever, they will have to abide by that framework and respond that they have no-objection. Otherwise they would be breaking the law.
In those countries where there are rights, policies or whatsoever that allow a local authority to intervene regarding their names/identifiers, they will have to follow the law when providing the letter of non-objection, setting condition or even denying it.
So, with the 2012 AGB the ICANN actually applied a principle of subsidiarity here, without trying to impose a “one-size-fits all” approach, but allowing for different local approaches.
In general, as local authorities are bound by law, their actions can be subject to review.
As to potential tardiness or absence of reply: as we have discussed, the new AGB could provide for deadlines for responses by the local government; it may even provide for an implied non-objection if there is no response within the deadline; and there can be even a mediation process being established in case the applicant does not agree with the decision from the local authority…
Best regards
Jorge
Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von McGrady, Paul D. Gesendet: Montag, 20. August 2018 17:11 An: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Thanks Alexander. Your email shows why a one-ICANN-size does not fit all.
I’m not sure what free speech is, or is not, like in Berlin. None of the other three examples you use (assuming you are referring to the US cities of Denver, Dallas and Chicago) would be permitted under the First Amenment to restrain speech by insisting no one else could apply for .Denver, .Dallas, or .Chicago (and culturally, even if it was permitted, the people of Dallas certainly, and perhaps even the people of Denver, would never go for such a restriction). So while Berlin may fall squarely into the paradigm you would like ICANN to adopt, the other 75% of your examples do not.
Likewise, having ICANN start down the path of free speech curtailment in large city names does lead to the problem of ICANN getting involved in the “who deserves it” business – your very poignant example of Berlin v Belarus v Azerbaijan shows just how messy that can be.
The compromise struck in the last round – protecting capital cities – was a major concession by the free speech crowd within ICANN. As your email makes clear, expanding that concession to even more cities will be incredibly complex and will inevitably curtail speech that otherwise would be granted to some if ICANN didn’t go down this path. I think it is time for us to come to grips that ICANN simply can’t be a supranational legislator. Please keep in mind that for those who want to work with cities to develop a market for second levels in those city names, there is no prohibition against them going to those cities and working with the cities to apply as community applications, which applications would trump a garden variety non-community application. The problem you are trying to address has already been solved.
Best, Paul
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:49 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
To add to this thought:
We are grossly INCONSISTENT with the protection levels that we are establishing. Right now we claim a country can NOT be allowed to support an application for their 3-letter code or country name within the gNSO policy framework – because we need to protect the country from “harm”. We are BANNING all these strings completely! But sizeable cities: anything goes, and thanks to the non-geo use provision: no protections whatsoever!
Now let’s compare countries and cities (and obviously I am doing this since 2006 A LOT – when I lobbied with Dirk for .berlin to come into existence): A city like Berlin has 3.5 Million people in the city limits, and roughly 5.5 Million in the metro area. Compared to countries:
• 50% of all countries are smaller than the Berlin metro area
• Still over 100 countries are smaller than Berlin within its city limits
• 63 countries (more than 25%) have populations under 1 Million people! So indeed: a Million inhabitant city is just population-wise at least as important and impacting as more than a quarter of all countries. BUT: if you look at a city like Berlin (or Denver, Dallas, Chicago): we aren’t just comparing population size! We are talking about domain name spaces, gTLDs! In that respect we ought to factor in the Internet penetration, the GDP and number of businesses (because they need domains – and Internet users will utilize these domains to find the businesses), cultural and political importance, etc. If you factor all this in, and compare Berlin to Belarus (a country I truly admire, beautiful capital, our southern neighbor) or Azerbaijan (each of both have 10 million people): Berlin uses WAY MORE domain names than these both. So suddenly a Million people city in an industrialized nation probably plays in the top 60% of countries – domain name usage wise.
I am wrapping my head around cities and gTLDs for probably way too long (14 years). But most of the times I observe that most people just don’t understand how HYPER IMPORTANT cities are as an organizational entity in the personal and business life of people. We are totally overprotecting country-geo-entities; but seemingly have no problem whatsoever that via the “non-geo use” loophole everybody and their greed grandma could snag up city based gTLDs en masse.
I think we either scrap the non-geo use provision altogether (which I personally do NOT support at all); or we at least elevate SIZEABLE cities to the same protection level as country subdivisions (these are by the way are often quite unknown, un-impacting and typically relatively small population-wise. Inconsistent.)
And as the brand-cloud seemingly today admitted: there are ZERO “curative” rights in the case of a city-supported application vs. a brand application. It’s “big bucks win”. I am consulting companies in regard to domain acquisition since 21 years now (started in 1997) – and let me tell you: contrary to the picture painted here in another message; most of the larger brands have no problems to slap several Million Dollars on a domain asset; if they really want it. No chance for a city constituent, non-profit public benefit entity to survive at all. But my bigger concern are VC capital infused portfolio applicants who are simply applying for dozens of city names – declaring non-geo use. Obviously city supported applications do currently NOT “top” non-geo use applications; and what then? They city supported applicant is likely non-profit AND had likely to make concessions to the city. Their business plan is much weaker – as they strive to be public-benefit and all. How can they win an auction against VC funded applicants?
The city gTLD process as we have set it up is HEAVELY stacked against the type of applicant that we always wanted to see: A good actor, public benefit, community supported, community owned & funded, non-profit, etc.
Unfair, not in the interest of the Internet user or the city constituents, not in sync with ICANN’s mandate. All we are asking for is to require city support for city name applications if the city is really BIG (in comparison to for example countries). And if that cut-off size were a Million people. VC money will likely not go for cities with less than a Million people – the registrar channel won’t sell enough domains to sustain the application.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 9:10 AM Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Sorry Greg, no intention to be prejudicial. I am not arguing that the non-geo use clause be closed entirely. I am suggesting that it not be available in the case of very large cities. If we are talking about cities of 1M people, that's about 500-600 cities, defined by an authoritative list we agree on. A good number will already be reserved as capital cities.
The word inventory makes it sound huge, like thousands of names are involved. That's not the case. It is very limited. I don't see that as an unreasonable compromise.
Marita
On 8/20/2018 1:20 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: I object to calling this feature a “loophole.” That is both prejudicial and incorrect as well. What we have is a reasonable limit on the Consent right that was given to non-capitol cities in the prior round.
From an end-user perspective, there is no presumption that a geo-use is superior to any other possible use of a given string.
From a city perspective, nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a city to apply for a string related to their city name. We are just not reserving numerous possibilities exclusively for their choice when or if they look into the idea of a TLD. And we are not reserving “inventory” for private businesses that consult in the geo-name space. That would truly be outside our remit.
Best regards,
Greg
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto: mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote:
I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants.
It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest.
I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world.
Marita
On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear WT,
Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money.
And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand.
Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective:
People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue).
I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s).
I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them.
And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern.
But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF.
Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples:
• A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”?
o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them.
• A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here!
o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE!
City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries?
We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc).
Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in?
We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia><mailto:edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss .
Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto: mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list.
It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<; https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith < Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Hi Mike
Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’.
Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies.
If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there.
I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses.
Best wishes Nick
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<; https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto: edmon@dot.asia>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon
-------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto: alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<; https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.c...
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt< https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Fr...>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto: annebeth.lange@norid.no>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto: carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto: martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1- < https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann....
gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org<
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.o...
] < https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de... < https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....
.
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
_______________________________________________
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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ 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
So your assumption is that eg the City of Chicago if asked for such a letter would ignore the First Amendment? As to the rule of law requirements: they are similar in all European countries which I‘m familiar with... best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Datum: 22. August 2018 um 06:56:52 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Jorge, In my day job, I have plenty of experience with authorities, though not from the inside. You seem to have missed my point. At no point did I raise any issue about whether or not an authority would be obliged to respond to a request for a letter of support. In any case, your "examples" are just general speculation of what might happen. Some "real world" experiences from the prior round would be useful. From the letters of support or non-objection I have seen, there was no indication of any "requirements" being followed, right of review, etc. I'm not going to assume facts that are not in evidence. It's interesting to know that Swiss authorities are obligated to respond to every request they receive and within a deadline. I suppose that is consistent with the Swiss reputation for precision. I'm not aware of any such requirements for the authorities with which I am familiar. The most useful part of your email was the revelation of where you got the idea that "In countries where (for whatever reasons) local authorities have no rights, policies whatsoever, they will have to abide by that framework and respond that they have no-objection. Otherwise they would be breaking the law." I didn't recognize the origin before and I'm sure Paul wouldn't recognize it either. Suffice it to say that this bears no resemblance to First Amendment application or jurisprudence or any law with which I'm familiar. This statement is a free-floating fantasy, without any basis in U.S. law or any other law with which I am familiar. It's certainly not a description of how the system worked in the 2012 round or how any relevant authority I can think of would have considered a request for a letter of support. Of course, if there is an actual example of a relevant authority acting in this fashion in the 2012 round, it would be great to know. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 12:37 AM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Greg I wonder what your experience with authorities is... At least in the countries I‘m familiar with they are obliged to answer any request filed with them. The answer has to be normally within a deadline and the decision has to be motivated (at least minimally). And if the decision affects rights or interests it is generally subject to review. Those are requirements stemming from rule of law requirements, not from the AGB certainly 😉 As to „relevant“: if the name of the string has a connection with the authority that would make it IMO relevant at least for filing the application (eg a city government for a city string matching its name). Systems for identifying the right authority could be improved, the GAC members could help more, the advisory geonames panel could... As to real-world examples perhaps others may help, but considering jurisdictions I know, in Switzerland it would be the authority who had a right under article 29 Civil Code on the corresponding string. If asked the authority would need to respond respecting the requirements mentioned above (obligation to respond, motivate, etc.). Following the argument of Paul, and assuming rule of law applies similarly, I would have thought that if a local authority in the US was asked it would have to respond that they have no basis under US law to interfere with the application, because (if Paul is right) they would be breaking the first amendment. Hence, the implied subsidiarity allows different local law/policy systems work, without imposing one model to all... Finally, as I said, everything is perfectible, and we can improve the current system, which has been (according to the known facts) a wide success - probably a reason for the many signs of support to these arguments from various SO/AC members... Best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Datum: 22. August 2018 um 01:43:39 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> 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] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Jorge, This is an incorrect description of the current system, which seems to have no basis in fact. I just re-read Section 2.2.1 of the AGB to see if I was missing something. I found nothing. However, I do think your email does suggest intriguing possibilities for how things might work — it just doesn’t reflect how things actually work now. The AGB doesn’t require a government to explain the basis for their letter of government support or non-objection, or the source of their power to grant it or deny it. It is entirely up to the “relevant government or public authority” to determine whether it has the right to respond, and if they think they can, they will. I don’t recall a single government or “relevant authority” turning away a request for support or non-objection because they seemed to be the right authority but in fact were not empowered to consider the request. You describe a situation that probably doesn’t exist — a local authority with “no rights, policies whatsoever” that is thus helpless to respond. That seems at odds with being an “authority,” whether established by rule of law or by brute force. If the local authority feels it can respond, it will respond. In the far-fetched situation where a local authority cannot consider a letter of support based on the framework of the country’s laws, then they are simply not the “relevant” authority and they become irrelevant. A higher level of government almost certainly has that authority. For your hypothetical to work, we would need to find a country where the “authorities” at every level felt powerless to respond. I doubt this exists. On top of this, you speculate that there is a “law” an authority would “break” if provided a letter of support unless there were “rights and Olivier” that “allowed” them to do so. What specific “law” do you think they would be “breaking”? What “framework” do you think they would have to “abide by”? (Real world examples, please.) You also get the basic concept upside-down when you speculate that an authority without rights or policies would somehow be forced to respond that they have no objection. What power do they have to formally issue a letter of non-objection? None. If the authority doesn’t have the power to object that will not get you a letter of non-objection. The authority simply has no authority to respond either way, and the applicant will be stuck without a letter, until it finds the “relevant authority.” Where a local authority is “allowed” to respond (which I suspect is virtually 100% of the time), I highly doubt it comes from specific “rights, policies or whatsoever,” about TLD support letters. More likely it comes from some more general law or laws empowering the local authority. So, we are unlikely to find the specific law you believe exists and that a local authority would have to “follow” when providing or not providing the letter of support. Essentially, it is at the discretion of the relevant authority, on any basis that they see fit. It’s only slightly less far-fetched to suggest that a government’s action relating to a letter request would be subject to review. Hypothetically, perhaps. But since there is no requirement that the government explain the basis for their authority or the basis for their decisions, there is unlikely to be any basis for review — unless one challenges the basic authority of the government to govern as it sees fit. Not likely to happen. So there really is no principle of “subsidiarity” here — except the principle that ICANN and every other possible applicant for a relevant string should be subsidiary to every government and relevant authority, and to decisions made at their sole discretion. If there is any “beauty” in the current system, it is in the eye of the beholder — and the beholder better like the exercise of unfettered discretion. I’m quite surprised that anyone “+1”-ed this flawed description and argument, but I suppose they did so because they liked the result and not because they found the analysis to be accurate. This is really at odds with “fact-based” decision making. We’re not going to get anywhere if we have to spend time dealing with “alternative facts.” Sad! Best regards, Greg On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:39 AM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: The beauty of the current system (the non-objection letter) is that it implies a system of subsidiarity. In countries where (for whatever reasons) local authorities have no rights, policies whatsoever, they will have to abide by that framework and respond that they have no-objection. Otherwise they would be breaking the law. In those countries where there are rights, policies or whatsoever that allow a local authority to intervene regarding their names/identifiers, they will have to follow the law when providing the letter of non-objection, setting condition or even denying it. So, with the 2012 AGB the ICANN actually applied a principle of subsidiarity here, without trying to impose a “one-size-fits all” approach, but allowing for different local approaches. In general, as local authorities are bound by law, their actions can be subject to review. As to potential tardiness or absence of reply: as we have discussed, the new AGB could provide for deadlines for responses by the local government; it may even provide for an implied non-objection if there is no response within the deadline; and there can be even a mediation process being established in case the applicant does not agree with the decision from the local authority… Best regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>> Im Auftrag von McGrady, Paul D. Gesendet: Montag, 20. August 2018 17:11 An: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Thanks Alexander. Your email shows why a one-ICANN-size does not fit all. I’m not sure what free speech is, or is not, like in Berlin. None of the other three examples you use (assuming you are referring to the US cities of Denver, Dallas and Chicago) would be permitted under the First Amenment to restrain speech by insisting no one else could apply for .Denver, .Dallas, or .Chicago (and culturally, even if it was permitted, the people of Dallas certainly, and perhaps even the people of Denver, would never go for such a restriction). So while Berlin may fall squarely into the paradigm you would like ICANN to adopt, the other 75% of your examples do not. Likewise, having ICANN start down the path of free speech curtailment in large city names does lead to the problem of ICANN getting involved in the “who deserves it” business – your very poignant example of Berlin v Belarus v Azerbaijan shows just how messy that can be. The compromise struck in the last round – protecting capital cities – was a major concession by the free speech crowd within ICANN. As your email makes clear, expanding that concession to even more cities will be incredibly complex and will inevitably curtail speech that otherwise would be granted to some if ICANN didn’t go down this path. I think it is time for us to come to grips that ICANN simply can’t be a supranational legislator. Please keep in mind that for those who want to work with cities to develop a market for second levels in those city names, there is no prohibition against them going to those cities and working with the cities to apply as community applications, which applications would trump a garden variety non-community application. The problem you are trying to address has already been solved. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:49 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. To add to this thought: We are grossly INCONSISTENT with the protection levels that we are establishing. Right now we claim a country can NOT be allowed to support an application for their 3-letter code or country name within the gNSO policy framework – because we need to protect the country from “harm”. We are BANNING all these strings completely! But sizeable cities: anything goes, and thanks to the non-geo use provision: no protections whatsoever! Now let’s compare countries and cities (and obviously I am doing this since 2006 A LOT – when I lobbied with Dirk for .berlin to come into existence): A city like Berlin has 3.5 Million people in the city limits, and roughly 5.5 Million in the metro area. Compared to countries: • 50% of all countries are smaller than the Berlin metro area • Still over 100 countries are smaller than Berlin within its city limits • 63 countries (more than 25%) have populations under 1 Million people! So indeed: a Million inhabitant city is just population-wise at least as important and impacting as more than a quarter of all countries. BUT: if you look at a city like Berlin (or Denver, Dallas, Chicago): we aren’t just comparing population size! We are talking about domain name spaces, gTLDs! In that respect we ought to factor in the Internet penetration, the GDP and number of businesses (because they need domains – and Internet users will utilize these domains to find the businesses), cultural and political importance, etc. If you factor all this in, and compare Berlin to Belarus (a country I truly admire, beautiful capital, our southern neighbor) or Azerbaijan (each of both have 10 million people): Berlin uses WAY MORE domain names than these both. So suddenly a Million people city in an industrialized nation probably plays in the top 60% of countries – domain name usage wise. I am wrapping my head around cities and gTLDs for probably way too long (14 years). But most of the times I observe that most people just don’t understand how HYPER IMPORTANT cities are as an organizational entity in the personal and business life of people. We are totally overprotecting country-geo-entities; but seemingly have no problem whatsoever that via the “non-geo use” loophole everybody and their greed grandma could snag up city based gTLDs en masse. I think we either scrap the non-geo use provision altogether (which I personally do NOT support at all); or we at least elevate SIZEABLE cities to the same protection level as country subdivisions (these are by the way are often quite unknown, un-impacting and typically relatively small population-wise. Inconsistent.) And as the brand-cloud seemingly today admitted: there are ZERO “curative” rights in the case of a city-supported application vs. a brand application. It’s “big bucks win”. I am consulting companies in regard to domain acquisition since 21 years now (started in 1997) – and let me tell you: contrary to the picture painted here in another message; most of the larger brands have no problems to slap several Million Dollars on a domain asset; if they really want it. No chance for a city constituent, non-profit public benefit entity to survive at all. But my bigger concern are VC capital infused portfolio applicants who are simply applying for dozens of city names – declaring non-geo use. Obviously city supported applications do currently NOT “top” non-geo use applications; and what then? They city supported applicant is likely non-profit AND had likely to make concessions to the city. Their business plan is much weaker – as they strive to be public-benefit and all. How can they win an auction against VC funded applicants? The city gTLD process as we have set it up is HEAVELY stacked against the type of applicant that we always wanted to see: A good actor, public benefit, community supported, community owned & funded, non-profit, etc. Unfair, not in the interest of the Internet user or the city constituents, not in sync with ICANN’s mandate. All we are asking for is to require city support for city name applications if the city is really BIG (in comparison to for example countries). And if that cut-off size were a Million people. VC money will likely not go for cities with less than a Million people – the registrar channel won’t sell enough domains to sustain the application. 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 Marita Moll Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 9:10 AM Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Sorry Greg, no intention to be prejudicial. I am not arguing that the non-geo use clause be closed entirely. I am suggesting that it not be available in the case of very large cities. If we are talking about cities of 1M people, that's about 500-600 cities, defined by an authoritative list we agree on. A good number will already be reserved as capital cities. The word inventory makes it sound huge, like thousands of names are involved. That's not the case. It is very limited. I don't see that as an unreasonable compromise. Marita On 8/20/2018 1:20 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: I object to calling this feature a “loophole.” That is both prejudicial and incorrect as well. What we have is a reasonable limit on the Consent right that was given to non-capitol cities in the prior round. From an end-user perspective, there is no presumption that a geo-use is superior to any other possible use of a given string. From a city perspective, nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a city to apply for a string related to their city name. We are just not reserving numerous possibilities exclusively for their choice when or if they look into the idea of a TLD. And we are not reserving “inventory” for private businesses that consult in the geo-name space. That would truly be outside our remit. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>> wrote: I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants. It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest. I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world. Marita On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear WT, Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money. And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand. Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective: People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue). I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s). I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them. And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern. But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF. Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples: • A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”? o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them. • A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here! o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE! City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries? We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc). Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in? We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention. 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 Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>><mailto:edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>> wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk><mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>>> wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia><mailto:edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia><mailto:edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt<http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Frfc%2Frfc1591.txt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=8jzkMQGvhCxVM4Nj%2BNFajFjwEzgZfuipvArVNY%2FcnNY%3D&reserved=0>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no><mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se><mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no><mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se><mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se><mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org><mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffile%2Ffield-file-attach%2Fannex-1-&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=5tPAZsMtAaecqOOYth%2BEcK8kT6NWj2haeKX5mFCx8l8%3D&reserved=0> gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=ivdh%2BFs44hZdJAEclsQfT8SGxpsVa%2F9c7srR%2F5bKKss%3D&reserved=0>] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=kz5Qlv8ZjaZhnl1iW5r8McZZa7dV8dcpcGhz%2FEM%2BlBc%3D&reserved=0>> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=v7ThLOQt1htQue6J7xGxpXkozzUW7CBijolY9kr58Vg%3D&reserved=0>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Requiring every local government agency to add ICANN processes to the top of their priority lists seems unrealistic (and rather imposing). Local government agencies may wish to spend their limited resources on priorities such as fighting fires and educating the children in the community, etc. These agencies may not be at all inclined to drop those priorities because they are now required to evaluate and respond to requests for ICANN TLDs with their limited resources instead. This process seems to be “solution" in search of a problem. Robin
On Aug 21, 2018, at 10:15 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
So your assumption is that eg the City of Chicago if asked for such a letter would ignore the First Amendment?
As to the rule of law requirements: they are similar in all European countries which I‘m familiar with...
best
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Datum: 22. August 2018 um 06:56:52 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Jorge,
In my day job, I have plenty of experience with authorities, though not from the inside.
You seem to have missed my point. At no point did I raise any issue about whether or not an authority would be obliged to respond to a request for a letter of support. In any case, your "examples" are just general speculation of what might happen. Some "real world" experiences from the prior round would be useful. From the letters of support or non-objection I have seen, there was no indication of any "requirements" being followed, right of review, etc. I'm not going to assume facts that are not in evidence.
It's interesting to know that Swiss authorities are obligated to respond to every request they receive and within a deadline. I suppose that is consistent with the Swiss reputation for precision. I'm not aware of any such requirements for the authorities with which I am familiar.
The most useful part of your email was the revelation of where you got the idea that "In countries where (for whatever reasons) local authorities have no rights, policies whatsoever, they will have to abide by that framework and respond that they have no-objection. Otherwise they would be breaking the law." I didn't recognize the origin before and I'm sure Paul wouldn't recognize it either. Suffice it to say that this bears no resemblance to First Amendment application or jurisprudence or any law with which I'm familiar. This statement is a free-floating fantasy, without any basis in U.S. law or any other law with which I am familiar. It's certainly not a description of how the system worked in the 2012 round or how any relevant authority I can think of would have considered a request for a letter of support. Of course, if there is an actual example of a relevant authority acting in this fashion in the 2012 round, it would be great to know.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 12:37 AM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Greg
I wonder what your experience with authorities is...
At least in the countries I‘m familiar with they are obliged to answer any request filed with them. The answer has to be normally within a deadline and the decision has to be motivated (at least minimally). And if the decision affects rights or interests it is generally subject to review.
Those are requirements stemming from rule of law requirements, not from the AGB certainly 😉
As to „relevant“: if the name of the string has a connection with the authority that would make it IMO relevant at least for filing the application (eg a city government for a city string matching its name). Systems for identifying the right authority could be improved, the GAC members could help more, the advisory geonames panel could...
As to real-world examples perhaps others may help, but considering jurisdictions I know, in Switzerland it would be the authority who had a right under article 29 Civil Code on the corresponding string. If asked the authority would need to respond respecting the requirements mentioned above (obligation to respond, motivate, etc.).
Following the argument of Paul, and assuming rule of law applies similarly, I would have thought that if a local authority in the US was asked it would have to respond that they have no basis under US law to interfere with the application, because (if Paul is right) they would be breaking the first amendment.
Hence, the implied subsidiarity allows different local law/policy systems work, without imposing one model to all...
Finally, as I said, everything is perfectible, and we can improve the current system, which has been (according to the known facts) a wide success - probably a reason for the many signs of support to these arguments from various SO/AC members...
Best
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> Datum: 22. August 2018 um 01:43:39 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Jorge,
This is an incorrect description of the current system, which seems to have no basis in fact. I just re-read Section 2.2.1 of the AGB to see if I was missing something. I found nothing. However, I do think your email does suggest intriguing possibilities for how things might work — it just doesn’t reflect how things actually work now.
The AGB doesn’t require a government to explain the basis for their letter of government support or non-objection, or the source of their power to grant it or deny it. It is entirely up to the “relevant government or public authority” to determine whether it has the right to respond, and if they think they can, they will. I don’t recall a single government or “relevant authority” turning away a request for support or non-objection because they seemed to be the right authority but in fact were not empowered to consider the request.
You describe a situation that probably doesn’t exist — a local authority with “no rights, policies whatsoever” that is thus helpless to respond. That seems at odds with being an “authority,” whether established by rule of law or by brute force. If the local authority feels it can respond, it will respond. In the far-fetched situation where a local authority cannot consider a letter of support based on the framework of the country’s laws, then they are simply not the “relevant” authority and they become irrelevant. A higher level of government almost certainly has that authority. For your hypothetical to work, we would need to find a country where the “authorities” at every level felt powerless to respond. I doubt this exists.
On top of this, you speculate that there is a “law” an authority would “break” if provided a letter of support unless there were “rights and Olivier” that “allowed” them to do so. What specific “law” do you think they would be “breaking”? What “framework” do you think they would have to “abide by”? (Real world examples, please.)
You also get the basic concept upside-down when you speculate that an authority without rights or policies would somehow be forced to respond that they have no objection. What power do they have to formally issue a letter of non-objection? None. If the authority doesn’t have the power to object that will not get you a letter of non-objection. The authority simply has no authority to respond either way, and the applicant will be stuck without a letter, until it finds the “relevant authority.”
Where a local authority is “allowed” to respond (which I suspect is virtually 100% of the time), I highly doubt it comes from specific “rights, policies or whatsoever,” about TLD support letters. More likely it comes from some more general law or laws empowering the local authority. So, we are unlikely to find the specific law you believe exists and that a local authority would have to “follow” when providing or not providing the letter of support. Essentially, it is at the discretion of the relevant authority, on any basis that they see fit.
It’s only slightly less far-fetched to suggest that a government’s action relating to a letter request would be subject to review. Hypothetically, perhaps. But since there is no requirement that the government explain the basis for their authority or the basis for their decisions, there is unlikely to be any basis for review — unless one challenges the basic authority of the government to govern as it sees fit. Not likely to happen.
So there really is no principle of “subsidiarity” here — except the principle that ICANN and every other possible applicant for a relevant string should be subsidiary to every government and relevant authority, and to decisions made at their sole discretion. If there is any “beauty” in the current system, it is in the eye of the beholder — and the beholder better like the exercise of unfettered discretion.
I’m quite surprised that anyone “+1”-ed this flawed description and argument, but I suppose they did so because they liked the result and not because they found the analysis to be accurate. This is really at odds with “fact-based” decision making. We’re not going to get anywhere if we have to spend time dealing with “alternative facts.” Sad!
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:39 AM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: The beauty of the current system (the non-objection letter) is that it implies a system of subsidiarity. In countries where (for whatever reasons) local authorities have no rights, policies whatsoever, they will have to abide by that framework and respond that they have no-objection. Otherwise they would be breaking the law.
In those countries where there are rights, policies or whatsoever that allow a local authority to intervene regarding their names/identifiers, they will have to follow the law when providing the letter of non-objection, setting condition or even denying it.
So, with the 2012 AGB the ICANN actually applied a principle of subsidiarity here, without trying to impose a “one-size-fits all” approach, but allowing for different local approaches.
In general, as local authorities are bound by law, their actions can be subject to review.
As to potential tardiness or absence of reply: as we have discussed, the new AGB could provide for deadlines for responses by the local government; it may even provide for an implied non-objection if there is no response within the deadline; and there can be even a mediation process being established in case the applicant does not agree with the decision from the local authority…
Best regards
Jorge
Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>>> Im Auftrag von McGrady, Paul D. Gesendet: Montag, 20. August 2018 17:11 An: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Thanks Alexander. Your email shows why a one-ICANN-size does not fit all.
I’m not sure what free speech is, or is not, like in Berlin. None of the other three examples you use (assuming you are referring to the US cities of Denver, Dallas and Chicago) would be permitted under the First Amenment to restrain speech by insisting no one else could apply for .Denver, .Dallas, or .Chicago (and culturally, even if it was permitted, the people of Dallas certainly, and perhaps even the people of Denver, would never go for such a restriction). So while Berlin may fall squarely into the paradigm you would like ICANN to adopt, the other 75% of your examples do not.
Likewise, having ICANN start down the path of free speech curtailment in large city names does lead to the problem of ICANN getting involved in the “who deserves it” business – your very poignant example of Berlin v Belarus v Azerbaijan shows just how messy that can be.
The compromise struck in the last round – protecting capital cities – was a major concession by the free speech crowd within ICANN. As your email makes clear, expanding that concession to even more cities will be incredibly complex and will inevitably curtail speech that otherwise would be granted to some if ICANN didn’t go down this path. I think it is time for us to come to grips that ICANN simply can’t be a supranational legislator. Please keep in mind that for those who want to work with cities to develop a market for second levels in those city names, there is no prohibition against them going to those cities and working with the cities to apply as community applications, which applications would trump a garden variety non-community application. The problem you are trying to address has already been solved.
Best, Paul
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:49 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
To add to this thought:
We are grossly INCONSISTENT with the protection levels that we are establishing. Right now we claim a country can NOT be allowed to support an application for their 3-letter code or country name within the gNSO policy framework – because we need to protect the country from “harm”. We are BANNING all these strings completely! But sizeable cities: anything goes, and thanks to the non-geo use provision: no protections whatsoever!
Now let’s compare countries and cities (and obviously I am doing this since 2006 A LOT – when I lobbied with Dirk for .berlin to come into existence): A city like Berlin has 3.5 Million people in the city limits, and roughly 5.5 Million in the metro area. Compared to countries:
• 50% of all countries are smaller than the Berlin metro area
• Still over 100 countries are smaller than Berlin within its city limits
• 63 countries (more than 25%) have populations under 1 Million people! So indeed: a Million inhabitant city is just population-wise at least as important and impacting as more than a quarter of all countries. BUT: if you look at a city like Berlin (or Denver, Dallas, Chicago): we aren’t just comparing population size! We are talking about domain name spaces, gTLDs! In that respect we ought to factor in the Internet penetration, the GDP and number of businesses (because they need domains – and Internet users will utilize these domains to find the businesses), cultural and political importance, etc. If you factor all this in, and compare Berlin to Belarus (a country I truly admire, beautiful capital, our southern neighbor) or Azerbaijan (each of both have 10 million people): Berlin uses WAY MORE domain names than these both. So suddenly a Million people city in an industrialized nation probably plays in the top 60% of countries – domain name usage wise.
I am wrapping my head around cities and gTLDs for probably way too long (14 years). But most of the times I observe that most people just don’t understand how HYPER IMPORTANT cities are as an organizational entity in the personal and business life of people. We are totally overprotecting country-geo-entities; but seemingly have no problem whatsoever that via the “non-geo use” loophole everybody and their greed grandma could snag up city based gTLDs en masse.
I think we either scrap the non-geo use provision altogether (which I personally do NOT support at all); or we at least elevate SIZEABLE cities to the same protection level as country subdivisions (these are by the way are often quite unknown, un-impacting and typically relatively small population-wise. Inconsistent.)
And as the brand-cloud seemingly today admitted: there are ZERO “curative” rights in the case of a city-supported application vs. a brand application. It’s “big bucks win”. I am consulting companies in regard to domain acquisition since 21 years now (started in 1997) – and let me tell you: contrary to the picture painted here in another message; most of the larger brands have no problems to slap several Million Dollars on a domain asset; if they really want it. No chance for a city constituent, non-profit public benefit entity to survive at all. But my bigger concern are VC capital infused portfolio applicants who are simply applying for dozens of city names – declaring non-geo use. Obviously city supported applications do currently NOT “top” non-geo use applications; and what then? They city supported applicant is likely non-profit AND had likely to make concessions to the city. Their business plan is much weaker – as they strive to be public-benefit and all. How can they win an auction against VC funded applicants?
The city gTLD process as we have set it up is HEAVELY stacked against the type of applicant that we always wanted to see: A good actor, public benefit, community supported, community owned & funded, non-profit, etc.
Unfair, not in the interest of the Internet user or the city constituents, not in sync with ICANN’s mandate. All we are asking for is to require city support for city name applications if the city is really BIG (in comparison to for example countries). And if that cut-off size were a Million people. VC money will likely not go for cities with less than a Million people – the registrar channel won’t sell enough domains to sustain the application.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>] On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 9:10 AM Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Sorry Greg, no intention to be prejudicial. I am not arguing that the non-geo use clause be closed entirely. I am suggesting that it not be available in the case of very large cities. If we are talking about cities of 1M people, that's about 500-600 cities, defined by an authoritative list we agree on. A good number will already be reserved as capital cities.
The word inventory makes it sound huge, like thousands of names are involved. That's not the case. It is very limited. I don't see that as an unreasonable compromise.
Marita
On 8/20/2018 1:20 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: I object to calling this feature a “loophole.” That is both prejudicial and incorrect as well. What we have is a reasonable limit on the Consent right that was given to non-capitol cities in the prior round.
From an end-user perspective, there is no presumption that a geo-use is superior to any other possible use of a given string.
From a city perspective, nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a city to apply for a string related to their city name. We are just not reserving numerous possibilities exclusively for their choice when or if they look into the idea of a TLD. And we are not reserving “inventory” for private businesses that consult in the geo-name space. That would truly be outside our remit.
Best regards,
Greg
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>> wrote:
I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants.
It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest.
I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world.
Marita
On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear WT,
Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money.
And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand.
Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective:
People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue).
I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s).
I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them.
And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern.
But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF.
Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples:
• A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”?
o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them.
• A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here!
o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE!
City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries?
We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc).
Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in?
We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia><mailto:edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia>>><mailto:edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia><mailto:edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia>>>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss .
Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>>> wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list.
It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> <http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0>>
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk <mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk><mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk <mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>><mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk <mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk><mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk <mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>>>> wrote: Hi Mike
Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’.
Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies.
If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there.
I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses.
Best wishes Nick
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>>> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia><mailto:edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia>><mailto:edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia><mailto:edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia>>>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> <http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0>>
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia><mailto:edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia>><mailto:edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia><mailto:edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia>>>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon
-------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0> <http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0>>
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>>> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt <http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt><http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt <http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt>><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Frfc%2Frfc1591.txt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=8jzkMQGvhCxVM4Nj%2BNFajFjwEzgZfuipvArVNY%2FcnNY%3D&reserved=0 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Frfc%2Frfc1591.txt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=8jzkMQGvhCxVM4Nj%2BNFajFjwEzgZfuipvArVNY%2FcnNY%3D&reserved=0>>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no><mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>><mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no><mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>>>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se><mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>><mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se><mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no><mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>><mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no><mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>>>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se><mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>><mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se><mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>>>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se><mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>><mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se><mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org><mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>><mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org><mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffile%2Ffield-file-attach%2Fannex-1-&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=5tPAZsMtAaecqOOYth%2BEcK8kT6NWj2haeKX5mFCx8l8%3D&reserved=0> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-%3...> gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/><http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=ivdh%2BFs44hZdJAEclsQfT8SGxpsVa%2F9c7srR%2F5bKKss%3D&reserved=0 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=ivdh%2BFs44hZdJAEclsQfT8SGxpsVa%2F9c7srR%2F5bKKss%3D&reserved=0>>] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=kz5Qlv8ZjaZhnl1iW5r8McZZa7dV8dcpcGhz%2FEM%2BlBc%3D&reserved=0> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=%3Chttps://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=kz5Qlv8ZjaZhnl1iW5r8McZZa7dV8dcpcGhz%2FEM%2BlBc%3D&reserved=0%3E>> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>>.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=v7ThLOQt1htQue6J7xGxpXkozzUW7CBijolY9kr58Vg%3D&reserved=0> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5%3Chttps://na01.saf...>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5%3Chttps://na01.saf...>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5%3Chttps://na01.saf...>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5%3Chttps://na01.saf...>
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5%3Chttps://na01.saf...>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5%3Chttps://na01.saf...>
________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto: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> _______________________________________________ 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>
What makes this thread extra entertaining is that the problem that the solution seems to be in search of was a problem we have already resolved. If an applicant wants to apply for .Chicago and does not want to face ICANN’s price competition via ICANN’s auction process, all it need to do is go to the City of Chicago and ask it to back its community application. If Chicago does that, as other cities did in the past round, than its community application takes the top spot. Even if the owners of CHICAGO the musical or the well-known band called CHICAGO applied, they would lose out to the community application. ICANN has already picked the winners and losers of this scenario. There simply isn’t a problem left to solve here. Adding in an extra layer of speech restraint in order to make sure that .city entrepreneurs don’t have any competition (even feeble competition that won’t survive a contention set involving a community application) creates problems – it doesn’t solve any. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 1:16 PM To: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Requiring every local government agency to add ICANN processes to the top of their priority lists seems unrealistic (and rather imposing). Local government agencies may wish to spend their limited resources on priorities such as fighting fires and educating the children in the community, etc. These agencies may not be at all inclined to drop those priorities because they are now required to evaluate and respond to requests for ICANN TLDs with their limited resources instead. This process seems to be “solution" in search of a problem. Robin On Aug 21, 2018, at 10:15 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: So your assumption is that eg the City of Chicago if asked for such a letter would ignore the First Amendment? As to the rule of law requirements: they are similar in all European countries which I‘m familiar with... best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Datum: 22. August 2018 um 06:56:52 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Jorge, In my day job, I have plenty of experience with authorities, though not from the inside. You seem to have missed my point. At no point did I raise any issue about whether or not an authority would be obliged to respond to a request for a letter of support. In any case, your "examples" are just general speculation of what might happen. Some "real world" experiences from the prior round would be useful. From the letters of support or non-objection I have seen, there was no indication of any "requirements" being followed, right of review, etc. I'm not going to assume facts that are not in evidence. It's interesting to know that Swiss authorities are obligated to respond to every request they receive and within a deadline. I suppose that is consistent with the Swiss reputation for precision. I'm not aware of any such requirements for the authorities with which I am familiar. The most useful part of your email was the revelation of where you got the idea that "In countries where (for whatever reasons) local authorities have no rights, policies whatsoever, they will have to abide by that framework and respond that they have no-objection. Otherwise they would be breaking the law." I didn't recognize the origin before and I'm sure Paul wouldn't recognize it either. Suffice it to say that this bears no resemblance to First Amendment application or jurisprudence or any law with which I'm familiar. This statement is a free-floating fantasy, without any basis in U.S. law or any other law with which I am familiar. It's certainly not a description of how the system worked in the 2012 round or how any relevant authority I can think of would have considered a request for a letter of support. Of course, if there is an actual example of a relevant authority acting in this fashion in the 2012 round, it would be great to know. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 12:37 AM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Greg I wonder what your experience with authorities is... At least in the countries I‘m familiar with they are obliged to answer any request filed with them. The answer has to be normally within a deadline and the decision has to be motivated (at least minimally). And if the decision affects rights or interests it is generally subject to review. Those are requirements stemming from rule of law requirements, not from the AGB certainly 😉 As to „relevant“: if the name of the string has a connection with the authority that would make it IMO relevant at least for filing the application (eg a city government for a city string matching its name). Systems for identifying the right authority could be improved, the GAC members could help more, the advisory geonames panel could... As to real-world examples perhaps others may help, but considering jurisdictions I know, in Switzerland it would be the authority who had a right under article 29 Civil Code on the corresponding string. If asked the authority would need to respond respecting the requirements mentioned above (obligation to respond, motivate, etc.). Following the argument of Paul, and assuming rule of law applies similarly, I would have thought that if a local authority in the US was asked it would have to respond that they have no basis under US law to interfere with the application, because (if Paul is right) they would be breaking the first amendment. Hence, the implied subsidiarity allows different local law/policy systems work, without imposing one model to all... Finally, as I said, everything is perfectible, and we can improve the current system, which has been (according to the known facts) a wide success - probably a reason for the many signs of support to these arguments from various SO/AC members... Best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Datum: 22. August 2018 um 01:43:39 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto: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><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Jorge, This is an incorrect description of the current system, which seems to have no basis in fact. I just re-read Section 2.2.1 of the AGB to see if I was missing something. I found nothing. However, I do think your email does suggest intriguing possibilities for how things might work — it just doesn’t reflect how things actually work now. The AGB doesn’t require a government to explain the basis for their letter of government support or non-objection, or the source of their power to grant it or deny it. It is entirely up to the “relevant government or public authority” to determine whether it has the right to respond, and if they think they can, they will. I don’t recall a single government or “relevant authority” turning away a request for support or non-objection because they seemed to be the right authority but in fact were not empowered to consider the request. You describe a situation that probably doesn’t exist — a local authority with “no rights, policies whatsoever” that is thus helpless to respond. That seems at odds with being an “authority,” whether established by rule of law or by brute force. If the local authority feels it can respond, it will respond. In the far-fetched situation where a local authority cannot consider a letter of support based on the framework of the country’s laws, then they are simply not the “relevant” authority and they become irrelevant. A higher level of government almost certainly has that authority. For your hypothetical to work, we would need to find a country where the “authorities” at every level felt powerless to respond. I doubt this exists. On top of this, you speculate that there is a “law” an authority would “break” if provided a letter of support unless there were “rights and Olivier” that “allowed” them to do so. What specific “law” do you think they would be “breaking”? What “framework” do you think they would have to “abide by”? (Real world examples, please.) You also get the basic concept upside-down when you speculate that an authority without rights or policies would somehow be forced to respond that they have no objection. What power do they have to formally issue a letter of non-objection? None. If the authority doesn’t have the power to object that will not get you a letter of non-objection. The authority simply has no authority to respond either way, and the applicant will be stuck without a letter, until it finds the “relevant authority.” Where a local authority is “allowed” to respond (which I suspect is virtually 100% of the time), I highly doubt it comes from specific “rights, policies or whatsoever,” about TLD support letters. More likely it comes from some more general law or laws empowering the local authority. So, we are unlikely to find the specific law you believe exists and that a local authority would have to “follow” when providing or not providing the letter of support. Essentially, it is at the discretion of the relevant authority, on any basis that they see fit. It’s only slightly less far-fetched to suggest that a government’s action relating to a letter request would be subject to review. Hypothetically, perhaps. But since there is no requirement that the government explain the basis for their authority or the basis for their decisions, there is unlikely to be any basis for review — unless one challenges the basic authority of the government to govern as it sees fit. Not likely to happen. So there really is no principle of “subsidiarity” here — except the principle that ICANN and every other possible applicant for a relevant string should be subsidiary to every government and relevant authority, and to decisions made at their sole discretion. If there is any “beauty” in the current system, it is in the eye of the beholder — and the beholder better like the exercise of unfettered discretion. I’m quite surprised that anyone “+1”-ed this flawed description and argument, but I suppose they did so because they liked the result and not because they found the analysis to be accurate. This is really at odds with “fact-based” decision making. We’re not going to get anywhere if we have to spend time dealing with “alternative facts.” Sad! Best regards, Greg On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:39 AM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: The beauty of the current system (the non-objection letter) is that it implies a system of subsidiarity. In countries where (for whatever reasons) local authorities have no rights, policies whatsoever, they will have to abide by that framework and respond that they have no-objection. Otherwise they would be breaking the law. In those countries where there are rights, policies or whatsoever that allow a local authority to intervene regarding their names/identifiers, they will have to follow the law when providing the letter of non-objection, setting condition or even denying it. So, with the 2012 AGB the ICANN actually applied a principle of subsidiarity here, without trying to impose a “one-size-fits all” approach, but allowing for different local approaches. In general, as local authorities are bound by law, their actions can be subject to review. As to potential tardiness or absence of reply: as we have discussed, the new AGB could provide for deadlines for responses by the local government; it may even provide for an implied non-objection if there is no response within the deadline; and there can be even a mediation process being established in case the applicant does not agree with the decision from the local authority… Best regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>> Im Auftrag von McGrady, Paul D. Gesendet: Montag, 20. August 2018 17:11 An: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Thanks Alexander. Your email shows why a one-ICANN-size does not fit all. I’m not sure what free speech is, or is not, like in Berlin. None of the other three examples you use (assuming you are referring to the US cities of Denver, Dallas and Chicago) would be permitted under the First Amenment to restrain speech by insisting no one else could apply for .Denver, .Dallas, or .Chicago (and culturally, even if it was permitted, the people of Dallas certainly, and perhaps even the people of Denver, would never go for such a restriction). So while Berlin may fall squarely into the paradigm you would like ICANN to adopt, the other 75% of your examples do not. Likewise, having ICANN start down the path of free speech curtailment in large city names does lead to the problem of ICANN getting involved in the “who deserves it” business – your very poignant example of Berlin v Belarus v Azerbaijan shows just how messy that can be. The compromise struck in the last round – protecting capital cities – was a major concession by the free speech crowd within ICANN. As your email makes clear, expanding that concession to even more cities will be incredibly complex and will inevitably curtail speech that otherwise would be granted to some if ICANN didn’t go down this path. I think it is time for us to come to grips that ICANN simply can’t be a supranational legislator. Please keep in mind that for those who want to work with cities to develop a market for second levels in those city names, there is no prohibition against them going to those cities and working with the cities to apply as community applications, which applications would trump a garden variety non-community application. The problem you are trying to address has already been solved. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:49 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. To add to this thought: We are grossly INCONSISTENT with the protection levels that we are establishing. Right now we claim a country can NOT be allowed to support an application for their 3-letter code or country name within the gNSO policy framework – because we need to protect the country from “harm”. We are BANNING all these strings completely! But sizeable cities: anything goes, and thanks to the non-geo use provision: no protections whatsoever! Now let’s compare countries and cities (and obviously I am doing this since 2006 A LOT – when I lobbied with Dirk for .berlin to come into existence): A city like Berlin has 3.5 Million people in the city limits, and roughly 5.5 Million in the metro area. Compared to countries: • 50% of all countries are smaller than the Berlin metro area • Still over 100 countries are smaller than Berlin within its city limits • 63 countries (more than 25%) have populations under 1 Million people! So indeed: a Million inhabitant city is just population-wise at least as important and impacting as more than a quarter of all countries. BUT: if you look at a city like Berlin (or Denver, Dallas, Chicago): we aren’t just comparing population size! We are talking about domain name spaces, gTLDs! In that respect we ought to factor in the Internet penetration, the GDP and number of businesses (because they need domains – and Internet users will utilize these domains to find the businesses), cultural and political importance, etc. If you factor all this in, and compare Berlin to Belarus (a country I truly admire, beautiful capital, our southern neighbor) or Azerbaijan (each of both have 10 million people): Berlin uses WAY MORE domain names than these both. So suddenly a Million people city in an industrialized nation probably plays in the top 60% of countries – domain name usage wise. I am wrapping my head around cities and gTLDs for probably way too long (14 years). But most of the times I observe that most people just don’t understand how HYPER IMPORTANT cities are as an organizational entity in the personal and business life of people. We are totally overprotecting country-geo-entities; but seemingly have no problem whatsoever that via the “non-geo use” loophole everybody and their greed grandma could snag up city based gTLDs en masse. I think we either scrap the non-geo use provision altogether (which I personally do NOT support at all); or we at least elevate SIZEABLE cities to the same protection level as country subdivisions (these are by the way are often quite unknown, un-impacting and typically relatively small population-wise. Inconsistent.) And as the brand-cloud seemingly today admitted: there are ZERO “curative” rights in the case of a city-supported application vs. a brand application. It’s “big bucks win”. I am consulting companies in regard to domain acquisition since 21 years now (started in 1997) – and let me tell you: contrary to the picture painted here in another message; most of the larger brands have no problems to slap several Million Dollars on a domain asset; if they really want it. No chance for a city constituent, non-profit public benefit entity to survive at all. But my bigger concern are VC capital infused portfolio applicants who are simply applying for dozens of city names – declaring non-geo use. Obviously city supported applications do currently NOT “top” non-geo use applications; and what then? They city supported applicant is likely non-profit AND had likely to make concessions to the city. Their business plan is much weaker – as they strive to be public-benefit and all. How can they win an auction against VC funded applicants? The city gTLD process as we have set it up is HEAVELY stacked against the type of applicant that we always wanted to see: A good actor, public benefit, community supported, community owned & funded, non-profit, etc. Unfair, not in the interest of the Internet user or the city constituents, not in sync with ICANN’s mandate. All we are asking for is to require city support for city name applications if the city is really BIG (in comparison to for example countries). And if that cut-off size were a Million people. VC money will likely not go for cities with less than a Million people – the registrar channel won’t sell enough domains to sustain the application. 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 Marita Moll Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 9:10 AM Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Sorry Greg, no intention to be prejudicial. I am not arguing that the non-geo use clause be closed entirely. I am suggesting that it not be available in the case of very large cities. If we are talking about cities of 1M people, that's about 500-600 cities, defined by an authoritative list we agree on. A good number will already be reserved as capital cities. The word inventory makes it sound huge, like thousands of names are involved. That's not the case. It is very limited. I don't see that as an unreasonable compromise. Marita On 8/20/2018 1:20 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: I object to calling this feature a “loophole.” That is both prejudicial and incorrect as well. What we have is a reasonable limit on the Consent right that was given to non-capitol cities in the prior round. From an end-user perspective, there is no presumption that a geo-use is superior to any other possible use of a given string. From a city perspective, nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a city to apply for a string related to their city name. We are just not reserving numerous possibilities exclusively for their choice when or if they look into the idea of a TLD. And we are not reserving “inventory” for private businesses that consult in the geo-name space. That would truly be outside our remit. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>> wrote: I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants. It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest. I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world. Marita On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear WT, Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money. And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand. Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective: People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue). I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s). I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them. And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern. But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF. Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples: • A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”? o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them. • A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here! o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE! City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries? We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc). Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in? We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention. 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 Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia><mailto:edmon@dot.asia>><mailto:edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>> wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0><http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttps:/na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0%3e> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk><mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk><mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>>> wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia><mailto:edmon@dot.asia><mailto:edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0><http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttps:/na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0%3e> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia><mailto:edmon@dot.asia><mailto:edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0><http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttps:/na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frodenbaugh.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=UWDK1I6LmXr1mP5Q9M3pakExQTW06pulcbhgwkE1tNc%3D&reserved=0%3e> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>> wrote: Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos, I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Frfc%2Frfc1591.txt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cea98daa99dff40e869fe08d609edad61%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636707313764075712&sdata=URJ4wpUfnhv6KtixM4ZnYO1UnOiKL4JytjteCpwL7fM%3D&reserved=0><http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Frfc%2Frfc1591.txt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cea98daa99dff40e869fe08d609edad61%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636707313764095733&sdata=3cSuJQZeE3VzVl490VAb81zbKVKDKk2ilJvNHkM7loM%3D&reserved=0>><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Frfc%2Frfc1591.txt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=8jzkMQGvhCxVM4Nj%2BNFajFjwEzgZfuipvArVNY%2FcnNY%3D&reserved=0<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2Frfc%2Frfc1591.txt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cea98daa99dff40e869fe08d609edad61%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636707313764105741&sdata=ia0zWm5n7jYDIDl%2FC7y53oaiYyj66Tk5rlyzJQei2Gc%3D&reserved=0>>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs. If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway. The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs). Thanks, Alexander Sent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no><mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no><mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se><mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se><mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Hi Carlos Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs? Kind regards, Annebeth Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no><mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no><mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se><mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se><mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>>: My comments to today's call: 1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward. 2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation 3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation Best regards --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se><mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se><mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió: Dear Work Track members, Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call. Kind regards, Emily *From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org><mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org><mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear Work Track members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached. As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffile%2Ffield-file-attach%2Fannex-1-&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=5tPAZsMtAaecqOOYth%2BEcK8kT6NWj2haeKX5mFCx8l8%3D&reserved=0><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffile%2Ffield-file-attach%2Fannex-1-%253Chttps%3A%2F%2Fna01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fgnso.icann.org%252Fsites%252Fdefault%252Ffiles%252Ffile%252Ffield-file-attach%252Fannex-1-%26data%3D02%257C01%257Cpmcgrady%2540winston.com%257Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%257C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%257C0%257C0%257C636703697848336641%26sdata%3D5tPAZsMtAaecqOOYth%252BEcK8kT6NWj2haeKX5mFCx8l8%253D%26reserved%3D0%253E&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cea98daa99dff40e869fe08d609edad61%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636707313764115749&sdata=2vY%2FxTCtc5qiEEdQ8SqTn5liHh6AdQYGRNE3ABfResk%3D&reserved=0> gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cea98daa99dff40e869fe08d609edad61%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636707313764125751&sdata=M1veFU5N8%2BbH8%2Fd%2BOHDNBU4faSo3R%2BZvHIQdzdXdWz8%3D&reserved=0><http://gnso.icann.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cea98daa99dff40e869fe08d609edad61%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636707313764135759&sdata=QflKHPmjUjyOr9Nq2WPT6cizixt%2B48qZiT5f%2FKmhqrE%3D&reserved=0>><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=ivdh%2BFs44hZdJAEclsQfT8SGxpsVa%2F9c7srR%2F5bKKss%3D&reserved=0<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cea98daa99dff40e869fe08d609edad61%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636707313764145779&sdata=S1vGwJdVi29KoWc9bLyqNcKly5SYhNVeimipr%2B3iBbk%3D&reserved=0>>] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=kz5Qlv8ZjaZhnl1iW5r8McZZa7dV8dcpcGhz%2FEM%2BlBc%3D&reserved=0><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%26m%3DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%26s%3Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%26e%3D%253Chttps%3A%2F%2Fna01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Furldefense.proofpoint.com%252Fv2%252Furl%253Fu%253Dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf%2526d%253DDwMGaQ%2526c%253DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%2526r%253DmBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI%2526m%253DNVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA%2526s%253Dg15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww%2526e%253D%26data%3D02%257C01%257Cpmcgrady%2540winston.com%257Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%257C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%257C0%257C0%257C636703697848336641%26sdata%3Dkz5Qlv8ZjaZhnl1iW5r8McZZa7dV8dcpcGhz%252FEM%252BlBc%253D%26reserved%3D0%253E&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cea98daa99dff40e869fe08d609edad61%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636707313764155781&sdata=lzpM85vbPfXfgtAVOcMTeDPAebwQCF6GTroBXwA5tR8%3D&reserved=0>> . If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>. Kind regards, WT5 Co-Leads Annebeth Lange Javier Rua Olga Cavalli Martin Sutton The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848336641&sdata=v7ThLOQt1htQue6J7xGxpXkozzUW7CBijolY9kr58Vg%3D&reserved=0><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5%253Chttps%3A%2F%2Fna01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fmm.icann.org%252Fmailman%252Flistinfo%252Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5%26data%3D02%257C01%257Cpmcgrady%2540winston.com%257Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%257C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%257C0%257C0%257C636703697848336641%26sdata%3Dv7ThLOQt1htQue6J7xGxpXkozzUW7CBijolY9kr58Vg%253D%26reserved%3D0%253E&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cea98daa99dff40e869fe08d609edad61%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636707313764165783&sdata=Vuwx7BIDxmChcuVXdX4llk3e8yYS5h8NXF2QlLGZzIo%3D&reserved=0> <Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf> <Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5%253Chttps%3A%2F%2Fna01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fmm.icann.org%252Fmailman%252Flistinfo%252Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5%26data%3D02%257C01%257Cpmcgrady%2540winston.com%257Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%257C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%257C0%257C0%257C636703697848492895%26sdata%3D7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%252BDyQy95b4%253D%26reserved%3D0%253E&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cea98daa99dff40e869fe08d609edad61%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636707313764175797&sdata=zCDgJBLs3uXuinZlkEWkqoDA85GKF6S2jkR%2BtjML7bw%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5%253Chttps%3A%2F%2Fna01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fmm.icann.org%252Fmailman%252Flistinfo%252Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5%26data%3D02%257C01%257Cpmcgrady%2540winston.com%257Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%257C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%257C0%257C0%257C636703697848492895%26sdata%3D7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%252BDyQy95b4%253D%26reserved%3D0%253E&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cea98daa99dff40e869fe08d609edad61%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636707313764185799&sdata=QMhZ%2BtPZMUM4OvlsHyni3zUsQeea4oQsF373A4WckpE%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5%253Chttps%3A%2F%2Fna01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fmm.icann.org%252Fmailman%252Flistinfo%252Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5%26data%3D02%257C01%257Cpmcgrady%2540winston.com%257Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%257C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%257C0%257C0%257C636703697848492895%26sdata%3D7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%252BDyQy95b4%253D%26reserved%3D0%253E&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cea98daa99dff40e869fe08d609edad61%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636707313764195807&sdata=tRP621Jkf5Di6TBX%2BUsyDVw0AHRSr6E3CvCnd0%2BthSs%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5%253Chttps%3A%2F%2Fna01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fmm.icann.org%252Fmailman%252Flistinfo%252Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5%26data%3D02%257C01%257Cpmcgrady%2540winston.com%257Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%257C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%257C0%257C0%257C636703697848492895%26sdata%3D7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%252BDyQy95b4%253D%26reserved%3D0%253E&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cea98daa99dff40e869fe08d609edad61%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636707313764205826&sdata=ZXm1ak%2FSgUF0BgWbIfQlBEH1URJ72z4XBTwMGn96Yfc%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636703697848492895&sdata=7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%2BDyQy95b4%3D&reserved=0><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5%253Chttps%3A%2F%2Fna01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fmm.icann.org%252Fmailman%252Flistinfo%252Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5%26data%3D02%257C01%257Cpmcgrady%2540winston.com%257Cafdc47ac5e054d7492f108d606a3c85a%257C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%257C0%257C0%257C636703697848492895%26sdata%3D7odbeEMFFLrXyAc4PBoxO8qvRwyBMkGZc6%252BDyQy95b4%253D%26reserved%3D0%253E&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cea98daa99dff40e869fe08d609edad61%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636707313764215828&sdata=%2FXKKpN87RKFonLKnIOFBn05eUmRmWJjwfR91ZhOZQAo%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cea98daa99dff40e869fe08d609edad61%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636707313764225831&sdata=A95fMwfpDmUzXWaP9SoG9I3dAcFNyolP1Wzp0YRuajg%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cea98daa99dff40e869fe08d609edad61%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636707313764225831&sdata=A95fMwfpDmUzXWaP9SoG9I3dAcFNyolP1Wzp0YRuajg%3D&reserved=0>
Greg, You claim “nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a city to apply for a string related to their city name”. Which makes literally no sense at all as it is based on two false presumptions: * That “cities” were usually the applicant entity for city gTLDs. They are NOT in the vast majority of cases; and why would they be? Do they run the TV stations of the city? Do they run the newspapers? Do they run the telecommunication providers? Of course NOT. It’s just not the JOB for a “city” to actually apply and then run a city based gTLD. * The other presumption is, that the constituents of ALL cities would detect their need for a city name based gTLD right NOW – in time for the next gTLD round. Look at the .com development: Imagine you went to the city major’s office, or the city destination marketing in 1994 – and told them: “Hey guys, don’t be silly: register your city name as .com domain – YOU NEED THAT in the future”. What do you think would have been the reaction back in 1994? Right: Nobody would have declared themselves authorative, or “in need”. In fact nobody in for example Denver would have foreseen that denver.com might be THE city destination marketing platform of all! Go to the Denver Marketing Office TODAY – and ask them what they would do to lay their hands on denver.com: wow! You probably had the major robbing on his raw knees in front of you; BEGGING for the domain. What I want to say is: Demand develops. It’s an iterative process that takes a lot of time over the DNS evolution. We can’t say: “Apply for your domain now – or be silent forever”. ESPECIALLY in “developing countries”. They might detect the need for city name based gTLD in only 10 years from now – and we ought to make sure that Million people cities aren’t “taken” by then; at least not without looping in the city at question. Thanks, Alexander Schubert From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 2:21 AM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. I object to calling this feature a “loophole.” That is both prejudicial and incorrect as well. What we have is a reasonable limit on the Consent right that was given to non-capitol cities in the prior round.
From an end-user perspective, there is no presumption that a geo-use is superior to any other possible use of a given string.
From a city perspective, nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a city to apply for a string related to their city name. We are just not reserving numerous possibilities exclusively for their choice when or if they look into the idea of a TLD. And we are not reserving “inventory” for private businesses that consult in the geo-name space. That would truly be outside our remit.
Best regards, Greg On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> > wrote: I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants. It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest. I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world. Marita On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear WT, Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money. And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand. Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective: People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue). I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s). I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them. And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern. But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF. Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved: What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity. Examples: * A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”? o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them. * A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here! o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE! City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries? We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc). Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in? We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: Edmon <mailto:edmon@dot.asia> <edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear All Yes they are valuable for those countries too There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution Regards Kavouss . Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> > wrote: That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk <mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> > wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia> > Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia <mailto:edmon@dot.asia> > wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> > Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > 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> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt <http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt> ) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> > Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> >:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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> > *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1- gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org> ] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> &d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> .
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Alexander, No false presumptions here. First, when I refer to the “city’s” ability, that includes applications by a city, on behalf of a city or with a city’s cooperation or blessing. I was trying not to be length, and thought that would be understood, but I guess not (at least by some). Thank you for the opportunity to clarify that. Your comparisons are off target. TV stations and newspapers don’t represent the city — they are businesses in that city that provide content, sometimes very much at odds with the Official City. As for telecom providers, they are more like a utility and they are quasi-public as they often operate under tightly regulated license or franchise relationships. Similarly, it seems that in the case of many .city TLDs the cities were highly involved. I hope that you aren’t opposed to cities actually applying for city TLDs.... As for the other “presumption” — that’s your “paper tiger,” not my presumption. What I said was that the cities are fully capable of applying for a string related to their city name — and that’s true now or 10 years from now. We are not erecting any barriers. If it so happens that one possible TLD for a city is also a possible TLD for some non-geo use (or for another city by that name), and that city turns up 10 years from now (or 50 years from now, assuming all of this lasts that long), it can turn to another TLD string that would be an acceptable variation (if there were two New York Cities, the second could turn to .newyorkcity, since .nyc is already taken). We spend far too little time discussing how TLDs generally and the next round of TLDs specifically can be publicized to cities. Raising awareness and increasing knowledge is a much less “regulatory” approach and one much more in line with the overall approach to the reservation (or not) of TLDs. Many, if not most million-plus cities are acutely aware of branding and the development of infrastructure to serve citizens — it’s not 1994 anymore, on either side of the dot. Best regards, Greg P.S. You should have your keyboard checked out; it seems to get stuck on “all caps” for entire words..... On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 8:45 AM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Greg,
You claim “nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a city to apply for a string related to their city name”. Which makes literally no sense at all as it is based on two false presumptions:
· That “cities” were usually the applicant entity for city gTLDs. They are NOT in the vast majority of cases; and why would they be? Do they run the TV stations of the city? Do they run the newspapers? Do they run the telecommunication providers? Of course NOT. It’s just not the JOB for a “city” to actually apply and then run a city based gTLD.
· The other presumption is, that the constituents of ALL cities would detect their need for a city name based gTLD right NOW – in time for the next gTLD round. Look at the .com development: Imagine you went to the city major’s office, or the city destination marketing in 1994 – and told them: “Hey guys, don’t be silly: register your city name as .com domain – YOU NEED THAT in the future”. What do you think would have been the reaction back in 1994? Right: Nobody would have declared themselves authorative, or “in need”. In fact nobody in for example Denver would have foreseen that denver.com might be THE city destination marketing platform of all! Go to the Denver Marketing Office TODAY – and ask them what they would do to lay their hands on denver.com: wow! You probably had the major robbing on his raw knees in front of you; BEGGING for the domain. What I want to say is: Demand develops. It’s an iterative process that takes a lot of time over the DNS evolution. We can’t say: “Apply for your domain now – or be silent forever”. ESPECIALLY in “developing countries”. They might detect the need for city name based gTLD in only 10 years from now – and we ought to make sure that Million people cities aren’t “taken” by then; at least not without looping in the city at question.
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Monday, August 20, 2018 2:21 AM *To:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>
*Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
I object to calling this feature a “loophole.” That is both prejudicial and incorrect as well. What we have is a reasonable limit on the Consent right that was given to non-capitol cities in the prior round.
From an end-user perspective, there is no presumption that a geo-use is superior to any other possible use of a given string.
From a city perspective, nothing we are doing here limits the ability of a city to apply for a string related to their city name. We are just not reserving numerous possibilities exclusively for their choice when or if they look into the idea of a TLD. And we are not reserving “inventory” for private businesses that consult in the geo-name space. That would truly be outside our remit.
Best regards,
Greg
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
I totally agree with getting rid of the non-geo use loophole for large cities - at least those with 1M+ inhabitants.
It just doesn't make sense that a non-geo use contender could beat out a collective of over1M people. This is a lot of people who would be disadvantaged, if it came to a contest.
I don't see the suggestion of having cities pass laws as very practical. It is within our mandate to make this recommendation and we should do it, on behalf of millions of citizens of cities around the world.
Marita
On 8/17/2018 2:10 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear WT,
Mike and Farzaneh have a point when they claim “Governments don’t OWN any of these codes”. And I concur with them: Governments do not “own” these codes. These codes identify a “national subdivision” (IS0 3166-Alpha-2) or a “country”; hence they are identifiers. Not “owned” by nobody – like the air or the water isn’t “owned” by anybody. Yet we still strive to PROTECT the air and the water, right? So it is clean and everybody can use it – and not one big company can pollute it just to make more money.
And that is probably Kavouss’ narrative (a very valuable one!): That these codes and names (ISO 3166 Alpha-2 & 3 and the country names) are important and of utter relevance for the people of the respective countries and subdivisions; and can’t simply be “taken” by some brand.
Seemingly some in this group see “Governments” as kleptomaniac entities that try to pry as much “public land” out of this gTLD application process as possible. But try to look at this from another perspective:
People are organized in hyper large “tribes” – the largest organizational entities probably being their countries, but also states and cities (hence we are protecting exactly these three silos right now). When I lived in Germany I felt first and foremost as “Berliner”. As opposed to for example to “Bavarian” (who are the natural “enemy” of Berliners). I also felt being German of course. And European. Berlin, Germany and Europe are extremely important identifiers for me and my identity. These three geo-entities obviously need to be governed by the people, for the people. By a Government of the people. And usually in Europe that’s how things are set up (sadly outside of Europe sometimes minorities dictate the majority what to do – but that’s another issue).
I expect from the Berlin Government (the capital of Germany, a German State and on the 3166-2 country subdivision list), from the German Government and from the European Commission to make sure that the important identifiers “.berlin”, “.de”, “.deutschland”, “.germany”, “.eu” and “.europe” are safeguarded from abuse or exclusive use by some “brand”! That the respective authorities make sure that these strings are readily available for ME as citizen and business owner (not for the Governments) to aid me in creating domain names that help identifying my tribe(s).
I EXPECT that Governments “protect” these strings – ON BEHALF OF ME and all of the other citizens. This is all about the needs of THE PEOPLE, Governments are merely identifying such needs, and aid in protecting them.
And the Governments are delivering! They do guard these identifiers – and I shall be thankful for it. Hence it bewilders me when “brand owners” are attempting to shame my elected representatives for protecting MY identifiers. By attacking the “Governments” – in reality you attack the citizens these Governments have been elected by – and who they are govern.
But I do agree that we ought to reign in the SCOPE of identifiers; and the degree of protection. By completely BANNING all country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes – even if the relevant Government would happily support such application – we at ICANN overprotect. It is then not anymore Governments who stop applications – it is ICANN that does. ICANN denies Governments to allow entities to apply. And does that even make sense? Give Governments some authority – don’t decide ON THEIR BEHALF.
*Which leads me to the one item we still haven’t solved:What about contention between a SIZEABLE geo-entity (with a LOT of citizens that want to use such string as identifier) and a generic term based application or a brand, or a small geo entity*. Examples:
· A city constituent funded and owned .shanghai (24 Million people city) application vs. a brand “SHANGHAI” that claims “non-geo use”?
o Right now this would go into normal contention resolution; aka: either the city constituents raise a lot of money to buy the brand out; or they go into last resort auction and like the brand can easily outbid them.
· A Dallas, TX (7 Million people metro) city constituent funded and owned .dallas application vs. a “pseudo city application” for the city of Texas, Georgia, USA (a real U.S. city, even if small). Say their Major has been “bribed” in some way into signing a letter of support! Such application wouldn’t come from the tiny city itself – likely some “vulture” would use a loophole here!
o As per the current contention set rules as TWO DIFFERENT entities provided Government support BOTH applications would be put on hold – if there was no contention resolution BOTH applicants would get their application fees reimbursed. So there is zero risk for the “vulture” – they can lean back and wait for the offers for a “buy out” rolling in! These applications would NOT be subjected to the last resort auction! A LOOPHOLE!
City names in contention is a conglomerate of glaring loopholes. Brands and vultures can declare “non-geo use” – and outbid the city constituents! A city community owned and funded application is always financially “weak” – as they have to make all kinds of concessions to the city usually. The worst case is somebody coercing a small city major into signing a letter of support – and forcing the applicants for a large city to buy them out. If such applicant is lucky, nobody applied for the large city – and he has a city designated gTLD – and would be allowed to MARKET it as city TLD! GREAT. The citizens of the large city are wholly unprotected from exploitation. If both cities are in ONE country – maybe national law can help. But if they are in different countries?
We need to better protect the larger city-populations (people who live in sizable cities). We create all kinds of protections for 3-lettercodes or country subdivisions – but we do not protect these very large geo-communities very good. Why? Inconsistent. It is OK that we have the “non-geo use provision in place for small cities”. But SIZEABLE cities need a protection equal to country subdivisions (elimination of non-geo use). Even if we were to define “sizable” at a real high number. Million people cities mean: at least a million people that identify with the name! At least a million people who are robbed of their possibility to use city-based gTLD domains. A city robbed of their possibility to conduct city destination marketing, eGovernment and similar things under one nice identifier (usually cities reserve strings for official use, such as 911.city, townhall.city, visit.city, etc).
Question: If a “brand” (whatever the definition is – probably a simple TM registration for US $250 does the trick) claims a string; and is in contention with a sizeable city: If we keep the “non-geo use” loophole alive; what can the citizens of such city do? Does the current AGB provide for a successful path in “objection” (so called “curative rights”)? Or wouldn’t the brand simply declare that they have “TM rights” – thus the objection would be unsubstantiated? Lawyers here: Would a city objection against a brand application have ANY chance of success? Please be honest! I know you are fiercely defending your position – but I also know that you are honest: how would you defend a brand against such objection? Would you simply cave in?
We have soon the “consensus call” on city applications – but I don’t see that we have a clear understanding of the implications of contentions. Yes: in the 2012 round there were no problems. But then only a small percentage of brands claimed their strings, and only a few cities (of which many were capitals) did so. The next wave will contain more brands and less capitals but WAY more cities – plus “tricksters” will try to make a buck: We need to pay more attention.
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Arasteh *Sent:* Freitag, 17. August 2018 08:35 *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> <mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Cc:* Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> <edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear All
Yes they are valuable for those countries too
There should be a fair treatment of these TLDs but not over warehousing for merely commercial and brand purposes
Alexander’s suggestion may be a middle ground solution
Regards
Kavouss .
Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Aug 2018, at 03:08, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list.
It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith < Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> wrote:
Hi Mike
Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’.
Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies.
If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there.
I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses.
Best wishes
Nick
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* 10 August 2018 03:35 *To:* Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> *Cc:* leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."
Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> wrote:
IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon
-------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-
gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org] < https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...
.
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi Mike I don’t think anyone has yet claimed that countries own LL codes or LLL code; the RFC 1591 language speaks of the ccTLD manager being the trustee for the community it serves, and I think that principle still holds good in general terms and reflects a more holistic public benefit principle (yes as ever there are exceptions). Since the ISO3166 alpha 2 list is not static – new countries are recognised or countries reorganise themselves – unallocated LL combinations should continue to be kept out of the new gTLD programme. This also serves to maintain the distinction between the 2 letter ccTLDs and the 3+ letter gTLDs which has historically been a useful policy boundary. The alpha 3 list points are distinct but include that some of these (admittedly not all) have strong resonance with country names, and therefore they should not be part of the new gTLD programme, even if that does mean that some potentially great strings are unavailable (.GIN being my personal favourite). But as before the vast majority of the LLL combinations are still available. It’s starting to feel a bit like Groundhog Day here, I don’t think any new points are being brought up from when this was discussed as part of the relevant agenda in the WT5 meetings. The various discussion threads indicate (as could have been predicted) that various strongly held irreconcilable views continue to prevail. I think the draft initial report wording is correct in that in the absence of broad agreement we are basically required to stick to the 2012 rules. I thought we were trying to come up with some solutions for the terms which may have geo meanings which were NOT part of the 2012 AGB … the issues there make the LL and alpha 3 questions look relatively straightforward. In the meantime, it’s now been six years since the 2012 round, and an optimistic timeline to the next round is another three years minimum. We need to get a move on. Best wishes Nick From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: 17 August 2018 02:09 To: Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt<http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1- gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org>] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
+1 Nick Looking forward to hearing new ideas and moving forward in this discussion. Best, Rosalía [cid:B190111C-4AAD-456E-809F-8934B6CA8935] On Aug 17, 2018, at 10:21 AM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Hi Mike I don’t think anyone has yet claimed that countries own LL codes or LLL code; the RFC 1591 language speaks of the ccTLD manager being the trustee for the community it serves, and I think that principle still holds good in general terms and reflects a more holistic public benefit principle (yes as ever there are exceptions). Since the ISO3166 alpha 2 list is not static – new countries are recognised or countries reorganise themselves – unallocated LL combinations should continue to be kept out of the new gTLD programme. This also serves to maintain the distinction between the 2 letter ccTLDs and the 3+ letter gTLDs which has historically been a useful policy boundary. The alpha 3 list points are distinct but include that some of these (admittedly not all) have strong resonance with country names, and therefore they should not be part of the new gTLD programme, even if that does mean that some potentially great strings are unavailable (.GIN being my personal favourite). But as before the vast majority of the LLL combinations are still available. It’s starting to feel a bit like Groundhog Day here, I don’t think any new points are being brought up from when this was discussed as part of the relevant agenda in the WT5 meetings. The various discussion threads indicate (as could have been predicted) that various strongly held irreconcilable views continue to prevail. I think the draft initial report wording is correct in that in the absence of broad agreement we are basically required to stick to the 2012 rules. I thought we were trying to come up with some solutions for the terms which may have geo meanings which were NOT part of the 2012 AGB … the issues there make the LL and alpha 3 questions look relatively straightforward. In the meantime, it’s now been six years since the 2012 round, and an optimistic timeline to the next round is another three years minimum. We need to get a move on. Best wishes Nick From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 17 August 2018 02:09 To: Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt<http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1- gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
+1 Best regards Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Nick Wenban-Smith Gesendet: Freitag, 17. August 2018 18:21 An: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Hi Mike I don’t think anyone has yet claimed that countries own LL codes or LLL code; the RFC 1591 language speaks of the ccTLD manager being the trustee for the community it serves, and I think that principle still holds good in general terms and reflects a more holistic public benefit principle (yes as ever there are exceptions). Since the ISO3166 alpha 2 list is not static – new countries are recognised or countries reorganise themselves – unallocated LL combinations should continue to be kept out of the new gTLD programme. This also serves to maintain the distinction between the 2 letter ccTLDs and the 3+ letter gTLDs which has historically been a useful policy boundary. The alpha 3 list points are distinct but include that some of these (admittedly not all) have strong resonance with country names, and therefore they should not be part of the new gTLD programme, even if that does mean that some potentially great strings are unavailable (.GIN being my personal favourite). But as before the vast majority of the LLL combinations are still available. It’s starting to feel a bit like Groundhog Day here, I don’t think any new points are being brought up from when this was discussed as part of the relevant agenda in the WT5 meetings. The various discussion threads indicate (as could have been predicted) that various strongly held irreconcilable views continue to prevail. I think the draft initial report wording is correct in that in the absence of broad agreement we are basically required to stick to the 2012 rules. I thought we were trying to come up with some solutions for the terms which may have geo meanings which were NOT part of the 2012 AGB … the issues there make the LL and alpha 3 questions look relatively straightforward. In the meantime, it’s now been six years since the 2012 round, and an optimistic timeline to the next round is another three years minimum. We need to get a move on. Best wishes Nick From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: 17 August 2018 02:09 To: Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt<http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1- gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org>] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
+1 Jorge ________________________________ Von: Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com> Datum: 17. August 2018 um 18:36:28 MESZ An: Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>, gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. +1 Best regards Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Nick Wenban-Smith Gesendet: Freitag, 17. August 2018 18:21 An: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Hi Mike I don’t think anyone has yet claimed that countries own LL codes or LLL code; the RFC 1591 language speaks of the ccTLD manager being the trustee for the community it serves, and I think that principle still holds good in general terms and reflects a more holistic public benefit principle (yes as ever there are exceptions). Since the ISO3166 alpha 2 list is not static – new countries are recognised or countries reorganise themselves – unallocated LL combinations should continue to be kept out of the new gTLD programme. This also serves to maintain the distinction between the 2 letter ccTLDs and the 3+ letter gTLDs which has historically been a useful policy boundary. The alpha 3 list points are distinct but include that some of these (admittedly not all) have strong resonance with country names, and therefore they should not be part of the new gTLD programme, even if that does mean that some potentially great strings are unavailable (.GIN being my personal favourite). But as before the vast majority of the LLL combinations are still available. It’s starting to feel a bit like Groundhog Day here, I don’t think any new points are being brought up from when this was discussed as part of the relevant agenda in the WT5 meetings. The various discussion threads indicate (as could have been predicted) that various strongly held irreconcilable views continue to prevail. I think the draft initial report wording is correct in that in the absence of broad agreement we are basically required to stick to the 2012 rules. I thought we were trying to come up with some solutions for the terms which may have geo meanings which were NOT part of the 2012 AGB … the issues there make the LL and alpha 3 questions look relatively straightforward. In the meantime, it’s now been six years since the 2012 round, and an optimistic timeline to the next round is another three years minimum. We need to get a move on. Best wishes Nick From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: 17 August 2018 02:09 To: Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt<http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1- gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org>] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi Nick, hi all I absolutely agree with Nick here. Best Ann-Cathrin 17. aug. 2018 kl. 18:21 skrev Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>>: Hi Mike I don’t think anyone has yet claimed that countries own LL codes or LLL code; the RFC 1591 language speaks of the ccTLD manager being the trustee for the community it serves, and I think that principle still holds good in general terms and reflects a more holistic public benefit principle (yes as ever there are exceptions). Since the ISO3166 alpha 2 list is not static – new countries are recognised or countries reorganise themselves – unallocated LL combinations should continue to be kept out of the new gTLD programme. This also serves to maintain the distinction between the 2 letter ccTLDs and the 3+ letter gTLDs which has historically been a useful policy boundary. The alpha 3 list points are distinct but include that some of these (admittedly not all) have strong resonance with country names, and therefore they should not be part of the new gTLD programme, even if that does mean that some potentially great strings are unavailable (.GIN being my personal favourite). But as before the vast majority of the LLL combinations are still available. It’s starting to feel a bit like Groundhog Day here, I don’t think any new points are being brought up from when this was discussed as part of the relevant agenda in the WT5 meetings. The various discussion threads indicate (as could have been predicted) that various strongly held irreconcilable views continue to prevail. I think the draft initial report wording is correct in that in the absence of broad agreement we are basically required to stick to the 2012 rules. I thought we were trying to come up with some solutions for the terms which may have geo meanings which were NOT part of the 2012 AGB … the issues there make the LL and alpha 3 questions look relatively straightforward. In the meantime, it’s now been six years since the 2012 round, and an optimistic timeline to the next round is another three years minimum. We need to get a move on. Best wishes Nick From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 17 August 2018 02:09 To: Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>>; leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. That over 600 very valuable 2- and 3-letter combos that could be TLDs, and yet are reserved for no legitimate reason. Countries certainly don't own LL codes that don't correspond to current countries. And they also don't "own" the 3-letter codes that do show up on an ISO list, merely because they are on that list. It seems to me that many in this group are reopening the discussion as to all other 'geo' terms, and so these valuable names need to be thrown back into the mix as well. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Hi Mike Just to take the point here, the LL (all combinations 26 x 26 = 676 in total, of which approaching half are already in use as ccTLDs) plus the ISO 3166 alpha 3 LLL combinations which correspond to existing country and territory names (less than 300 of the 17,500 odd LLL combinations) can’t in any reasonable context be framed as ‘a large subset … reserved for no reasons whatsoever’. Up until now there seems to be a strong consensus for the long and short form country and territory names plus all the LL combinations and LLL combinations which correspond to ISO 3166 to continue to be excluded from any gTLD processes – for the reasons expressed on many threads up to this point about sovereignty over national assets and whether these could fall under domestic internet community policies (subsidiarity) or ICANN GNSO policies. If we can’t settle on that as for the 2012 AGB round then there will be a substantial opposition to any new gTLDs whatsoever so let’s not go there. I’ve said my piece on geo names falling below the hierarchy of capital cities; I think those are fair game for legit non geo uses. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 10 August 2018 03:35 To: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Note the first sentence in the RFC that Alexander cites: "This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." Since this WT5 appears to want to reopen every "geographic" issue imaginable, we need to add 2-character LL and 3-character geo TLDs to the mix. That is a large subset of potentially very valuable and useful names, reserved for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Edmon <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> wrote: IDN "cc"TLDs already broke (free from) that also. Edmon -------- Original Message -------- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Sent: 10 August 2018 2:43:34 AM GMT+10:00 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. What purpose does that distinction serve anyone? I think it is meaningless and entirely unnecessary, depriving the world of many very valuable two-character TLDs that have no reason to be sitting idle. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Dear Annabeth, dear Carlos,
I agree with Annabeth. RFC 1591 (who doesn't know it by heart: check ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt<http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt>) cemented the one and only real differentiator in the DNS: That there are ccTLDs; operated and organized by authority (which may be deligated like in .tv) of countries/nations. And that these are two character strings. That everything exceeding two characters are gTLDs.
If we want to keep this (rather artificial - but to date well working) BASE order of the DNS; we should refrain from assigning two character gTLDs. It's a TINY amount of potentially available strings anyway.
The two character vs more than two character distinction needs to be uphold; BOTH WAYS (no three letter ccTLDs).
Thanks,
Alexander
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message -------- From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> Date: 8/8/18 23:48 (GMT+02:00) To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Hi Carlos
Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don’t think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?
Kind regards, Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>:
My comments to today's call:
1. “The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names” This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more “liberal” version? How about: “ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories.” Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 “reserving ALL two character letter letter” combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it’s truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can’t think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.
2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation
3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation
Best regards
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:
Dear Work Track members,
Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 *To: *"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>> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.
Dear Work Track members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB
On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.
As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. *Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday*. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1- gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> .
If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
WT5 Co-Leads
Annebeth Lange
Javier Rua
Olga Cavalli
Martin Sutton
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
_______________________________________________ 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
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>
<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (19)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Ann-Cathrin Marcussen -
Arasteh -
Brian Winterfeldt -
farzaneh badii -
Greg Shatan -
Javier Rua -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH -
lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson -
Liz Williams -
Marita Moll -
Martin Sutton -
McGrady, Paul D. -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Nick Wenban-Smith -
Robin Gross -
Rosalía Morales -
Sahlman Sanna