Dear Robin Tks for yr thought May you pls kindly describe 1. Connection with authorities ..., What connection 2. You are not referring to capital cities ,Pls confirm 3.May you kindly and clearly describe those different categories of geographical names, from which list you did take them?Are they exhaustive or no exhaustive list Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone

On 22 Sep 2018, at 05:04, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

Dear all

„Intended use“ is very far from representing a compromise proposal.

We have had the debate on this idea for more than a year, so it is of little use and efficiency for us repeating arguments that are abundantly reflected on the record, and, as I recall, in the working document.

Let‘s see what the public consultation brings on these questions.

best regards

Jorge

ps: I‘ll be on leave some days, so excuse me if I don‘t react for a while.

________________________________

Von: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Datum: 21. September 2018 um 23:18:39 MESZ An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

Hello,

In follow-up to our WT5 meeting discussion earlier this week, I wanted to provide a more precise proposal for an amendment to policy requiring a govt. letter of support / non-objection from applicants of TLDs that are geo-words other than capital city names.

The goal here is to target the harm to be prevented from a misrepresentation that the TLD speaks for the local authority when it isn’t the case, while also allowing for other legitimate uses of a geo-word TLD to go forward. So it is an attempt to balance two legitimate interests in a way that can find room for preventing the bad acts, but allowing lawful TLD uses to go forward. It is a proposal for compromise to find middle ground.

In short: applicants who intend to represent a connection to the authority of a non-capital city or other geo-category from the guidebook will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection as a means of verifying that connection.

However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the non-capital city or the other geo-categories from the guidebook, protections will be enhanced by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geo-word.

Putting aside capital cities, we will leave them as the policy currently exists, we would ONLY require the govt. letter for the other geo-words IF the use represents a connection to the authority. So that would apply to non-capital city names and sub-national, unesco, etc. categories where govt. letters are currently at issue.

More precisely worded proposal: Applicants who intend to represent a connection the the authority of a city, sub-national place, unesco region, or appearing on the “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings” list will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection.

However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the geographic terms listed above, protections will instead be achieved by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geographic term.

I do invite comments, questions, and suggestions about this proposed amendment to the existing policy for geo-categories. I don’t claim this is a perfect proposal, but discussion could possibly help lead us to a better policy that attempts to balance differing legitimate interests in a more nuanced way than what we’ve got now.

Thank you! Robin _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Robin: a gTLD doesn't "speak" at all - if then SLDs do that. The registry doesn't "speak" about connections to the city either. I have never seen a city gTLD marketing whereby the registry makes claims of "speaking for the city Government" - and how could that even be? You are making up a problem that is inexistent. You now claim, that your proposal would leave the 2012 AGB protections for capital cities in place: That wasn't easily "readable" in the original post. Insofar some parts of my previous post are obsolete. Thanks, Alexander -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 12:29 AM To: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters Dear Kavouss, Thank you for your questions. I’ll try to answer below. 1. When I say “connection to the authority”, I’m referring to the legal authority or the government of the place (geo-word). So a TLD applicants could not misrepresent that they speak for or on behalf of the government of that place - that is the harm we are trying to present. If TLD applicants are intending to give that impression to the public, that they speak for or on behalf of that government, then they would need to obtain the proper letter of support from the government. This is largely the same as existing law in many countries. Just because the words “Chicago” are used, people do not automatically assume the govt of Chicago is the speaker or authorizing whatever words come next and who can make them. 2. Yes, the proposal would have the policy for capital city names remain the same, with the letters required, regardless of intended use. 3. The list of different geo categories comes from the ICANN Guidebook, so these are the exhaustive list of geo-categories that currently exists in the Guidebook. The different types of geo-categories specifically listed are: city, sub-national place, unesco region, or appearing on the “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings”. Thank you, Robin

On Sep 22, 2018, at 2:08 AM, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Robin Tks for yr thought May you pls kindly describe 1. Connection with authorities ..., What connection 2. You are not referring to capital cities ,Pls confirm 3.May you kindly and clearly describe those different categories of geographical names, from which list you did take them?Are they exhaustive or no exhaustive list Regards Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

...

On 22 Sep 2018, at 05:04, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

Dear all

„Intended use“ is very far from representing a compromise proposal.

We have had the debate on this idea for more than a year, so it is of little use and efficiency for us repeating arguments that are abundantly reflected on the record, and, as I recall, in the working document.

Let‘s see what the public consultation brings on these questions.

best regards

Jorge

ps: I‘ll be on leave some days, so excuse me if I don‘t react for a while.

________________________________

Von: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Datum: 21. September 2018 um 23:18:39 MESZ An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

Hello,

In follow-up to our WT5 meeting discussion earlier this week, I wanted to provide a more precise proposal for an amendment to policy requiring a govt. letter of support / non-objection from applicants of TLDs that are geo-words other than capital city names.

The goal here is to target the harm to be prevented from a misrepresentation that the TLD speaks for the local authority when it isn’t the case, while also allowing for other legitimate uses of a geo-word TLD to go forward. So it is an attempt to balance two legitimate interests in a way that can find room for preventing the bad acts, but allowing lawful TLD uses to go forward. It is a proposal for compromise to find middle ground.

In short: applicants who intend to represent a connection to the authority of a non-capital city or other geo-category from the guidebook will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection as a means of verifying that connection.

However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the non-capital city or the other geo-categories from the guidebook, protections will be enhanced by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geo-word.

Putting aside capital cities, we will leave them as the policy currently exists, we would ONLY require the govt. letter for the other geo-words IF the use represents a connection to the authority. So that would apply to non-capital city names and sub-national, unesco, etc. categories where govt. letters are currently at issue.

More precisely worded proposal: Applicants who intend to represent a connection the the authority of a city, sub-national place, unesco region, or appearing on the “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings” list will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection.

However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the geographic terms listed above, protections will instead be achieved by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geographic term.

I do invite comments, questions, and suggestions about this proposed amendment to the existing policy for geo-categories. I don’t claim this is a perfect proposal, but discussion could possibly help lead us to a better policy that attempts to balance differing legitimate interests in a more nuanced way than what we’ve got now.

Thank you! Robin _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

---

Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Sorry Robin, I am trying to figure out what you mean in the following sentence: "Again, it would still prevent TLDs that have no legitimate interest in a geo-word from going forward, but it would allow for other legitimate users to have an opportunity to register the TLD of a word that falls into one of the existing geo-word categories as well." Suppose the beer company Dortmund wants to register .dortmund (a city in Germany) -- only to promote its brand. The beer does come from Dortmund so there is a city connection. Would that be legitimate or not in your book? What is "legitimate interest?" and "non-legitimate interest" and who decides? Thanks Marita On 9/23/2018 5:14 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

I disagree, Jorge. We already have an intended use standard for noncapital city names, so it is something that has already been part of the existing policy with respect to some categories of geo-names. This proposal just takes ICANN's existing policy for noncapital city names and applies it to the other categories of geo-names that are in the guidebook. Again, it would still prevent TLDs that have no legitimate interest in a geo-word from going forward, but it would allow for other legitimate users to have an opportunity to register the TLD of a word that falls into one of the existing geo-word categories as well. Rather than take a “one side takes all” approach as we currently have, which allows one interest to extract “rents” or other concessions from anyone who also has a legitimate interest in using that string, we could try to balance the legitimate interests in order to be fair to all sides. It is worth considering if we are sincere about finding a compromise.

Thanks, Robin

...

On Sep 21, 2018, at 8:04 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:

Dear all

„Intended use“ is very far from representing a compromise proposal.

We have had the debate on this idea for more than a year, so it is of little use and efficiency for us repeating arguments that are abundantly reflected on the record, and, as I recall, in the working document.

Let‘s see what the public consultation brings on these questions.

best regards

Jorge

ps: I‘ll be on leave some days, so excuse me if I don‘t react for a while.

________________________________

Von: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Datum: 21. September 2018 um 23:18:39 MESZ An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

Hello,

In follow-up to our WT5 meeting discussion earlier this week, I wanted to provide a more precise proposal for an amendment to policy requiring a govt. letter of support / non-objection from applicants of TLDs that are geo-words other than capital city names.

The goal here is to target the harm to be prevented from a misrepresentation that the TLD speaks for the local authority when it isn’t the case, while also allowing for other legitimate uses of a geo-word TLD to go forward. So it is an attempt to balance two legitimate interests in a way that can find room for preventing the bad acts, but allowing lawful TLD uses to go forward. It is a proposal for compromise to find middle ground.

In short: applicants who intend to represent a connection to the authority of a non-capital city or other geo-category from the guidebook will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection as a means of verifying that connection.

However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the non-capital city or the other geo-categories from the guidebook, protections will be enhanced by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geo-word.

Putting aside capital cities, we will leave them as the policy currently exists, we would ONLY require the govt. letter for the other geo-words IF the use represents a connection to the authority. So that would apply to non-capital city names and sub-national, unesco, etc. categories where govt. letters are currently at issue.

More precisely worded proposal: Applicants who intend to represent a connection the the authority of a city, sub-national place, unesco region, or appearing on the “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings” list will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection.

However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the geographic terms listed above, protections will instead be achieved by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geographic term.

I do invite comments, questions, and suggestions about this proposed amendment to the existing policy for geo-categories. I don’t claim this is a perfect proposal, but discussion could possibly help lead us to a better policy that attempts to balance differing legitimate interests in a more nuanced way than what we’ve got now.

Thank you! Robin _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Dear Robin Tks for reply My answers are below You said *"1. When I say “connection to the authority”, I’m referring to the legal authority or the government of the place (geo-word). So a TLD applicants could not misrepresent that they speak for or on behalf of the government of that place - that is the harm we are trying to present. If TLD applicants are intending to give that impression to the public, that they speak for or on behalf of that government, then they would need to obtain the proper letter of support from the government. This is largely the same as existing law in many countries. Just because the words “Chicago” are used, people do not automatically assume the govt of Chicago is the speaker or authorizing whatever words come next and who can make them."* My answer Still I do not understand when and how and why the applicant speaks for the authority ? What public? How it occurs? Pls describe the circumstances that occurs. I have always been in favour of letter of support from the concerned government *2. Yes, the proposal would have the policy for capital city names remain the same, with the letters required, regardless of intended use.* My answer *Pls explore what really you are addressing?* *3. The list of different geo categories comes from the ICANN Guidebook, so these are the exhaustive list of geo-categories that currently exists in the Guidebook. The different types of geo-categories specifically listed are: city, sub-national place, unesco region, or appearing on the “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings”.* My answer And so what ? General Comments I am sorry there is no consensus elements in this vague suggestion Regards Kavouss On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 2:03 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:

Hi Marita,

"Dortmund" is a good example; albeit hypothetical: no such beer is existing. But there is a "JEVER" beer - a brand that I have seen in many countries. It's named after the city of Jever in northern Germany.

I really don't think that a (any) brand that is "free-riding" (legally, though) on the positive image of a city community (built over centuries by their constituents) should be allowed to take the city's identity in the DNS "off market" - just to egoistically represent themselves. That doesn't "fly" in Germany. Actually in most if not all of Europe that wouldn't fly. However I think that especially for sizeable city entities such case would be rather rare: The main risk is that portfolio applicants are raiding geo name land globally, oblivious (unconcerned) of the target community's needs (interests) but only yielding the short lived requirements of their VC funders: making cash FAST! In a wood analogy that would be: Portfolio applicant: cut all the wood, and sell it; never mind the resulting erosion or lost living environment for the forests inhabitants. City constituent owned, funded and policied applicant: MANAGE the usage of the wood in a way that creates a balance for all involved parties and their interests.

While we are elaborating about the narrative of "legitimate interest":

I think it leads us down a rabbit hole by judging the potential "legitimate interest" of the applicant entity. In the end of the day it all boils down to have policies and an active TLD management in place that meets the legitimate interest of the TARGET COMMUNITY; and it is the obligation of the applicant to meet those interests! This is not about the egoistic "interest" of the applicant (e.g. the interest to make fast ROI for his investors). Maybe I have different priorities than Robin - but for me THE PEOPLE come first: not the "interest" of some applicant entity. A city name based gTLD is a piece of city infrastructure. It has to be suitable for the city's constituents. Their representatives (the city authority) is most likely best suited to evaluate whether the legitimate interests of said city community are being met.

Alexander

-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 2:15 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

Sorry Robin, I am trying to figure out what you mean in the following sentence: "Again, it would still prevent TLDs that have no legitimate interest in a geo-word from going forward, but it would allow for other legitimate users to have an opportunity to register the TLD of a word that falls into one of the existing geo-word categories as well."

Suppose the beer company Dortmund wants to register .dortmund (a city in Germany) -- only to promote its brand. The beer does come from Dortmund so there is a city connection. Would that be legitimate or not in your book? What is "legitimate interest?" and "non-legitimate interest" and who decides?

Thanks

Marita

On 9/23/2018 5:14 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

...

I disagree, Jorge. We already have an intended use standard for noncapital city names, so it is something that has already been part of the existing policy with respect to some categories of geo-names. This proposal just takes ICANN's existing policy for noncapital city names and applies it to the other categories of geo-names that are in the guidebook. Again, it would still prevent TLDs that have no legitimate interest in a geo-word from going forward, but it would allow for other legitimate users to have an opportunity to register the TLD of a word that falls into one of the existing geo-word categories as well. Rather than take a "one side takes all" approach as we currently have, which allows one interest to extract "rents" or other concessions from anyone who also has a legitimate interest in using that string, we could try to balance the legitimate interests in order to be fair to all sides. It is worth considering if we are sincere about finding a compromise.

Thanks, Robin

...

On Sep 21, 2018, at 8:04 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:

Dear all

"Intended use" is very far from representing a compromise proposal.

We have had the debate on this idea for more than a year, so it is of little use and efficiency for us repeating arguments that are abundantly reflected on the record, and, as I recall, in the working document.

Let's see what the public consultation brings on these questions.

best regards

Jorge

ps: I'll be on leave some days, so excuse me if I don't react for a while.

________________________________

Von: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Datum: 21. September 2018 um 23:18:39 MESZ An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

Hello,

In follow-up to our WT5 meeting discussion earlier this week, I wanted to provide a more precise proposal for an amendment to policy requiring a govt. letter of support / non-objection from applicants of TLDs that are geo-words other than capital city names.

The goal here is to target the harm to be prevented from a misrepresentation that the TLD speaks for the local authority when it isn't the case, while also allowing for other legitimate uses of a geo-word TLD to go forward. So it is an attempt to balance two legitimate interests in a way that can find room for preventing the bad acts, but allowing lawful TLD uses to go forward. It is a proposal for compromise to find middle ground.

In short: applicants who intend to represent a connection to the authority of a non-capital city or other geo-category from the guidebook will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection as a means of verifying that connection.

However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the non-capital city or the other geo-categories from the guidebook, protections will be enhanced by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geo-word.

Putting aside capital cities, we will leave them as the policy currently exists, we would ONLY require the govt. letter for the other geo-words IF the use represents a connection to the authority. So that would apply to non-capital city names and sub-national, unesco, etc. categories where govt. letters are currently at issue.

More precisely worded proposal: Applicants who intend to represent a connection the the authority of a city, sub-national place, unesco region, or appearing on the "Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings" list will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection.

However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the geographic terms listed above, protections will instead be achieved by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geographic term.

I do invite comments, questions, and suggestions about this proposed amendment to the existing policy for geo-categories. I don't claim this is a perfect proposal, but discussion could possibly help lead us to a better policy that attempts to balance differing legitimate interests in a more nuanced way than what we've got now.

Thank you! Robin _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

_______________________________________________ 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 Maureen, You are addressing the problematic of smaller nations – and their even smaller cities and regions. Let’s look at the different harm scenarios by size of geo entity 1. If a geo entity is “sizeable” (and industrialized – meaning people need domains) then the string is a target for portfolio applicants. E.g. cities over 500,000 or 1 Million people in industrialized nations. These strings are few in number – so there is no high risk that a “brand” would be interested. The risk are portfolio applicants trying to make quick bucks. 2. If a geo entity is middle sized (say between 50,000 and 500,000 people) then it’s not anymore really interesting for portfolio applicants (too few potential registrants to create high enough ROI) But there is a much higher number of geo entities: more brands that might bear the same name 3. If a geo entity is really smallish (below 50,000 people) they are completely safe from portfolio applicants in my mind. But in the same time I can’t really imagine many cases where community constituents would ever want to run the string as a gTLD! Too small a place, too few prospective registrants. Hence even IF there was a brand that bears the same name: In case they would use the domain as brand gTLD; I don’t see harm in that. Obviously exceptions to these examples are always existing; “Aspen” in Colorado being one. There is also a market mechanism that impacts small country communities: The ccTLD of a small country is usually not very crowded; I suspect your “.ck” will be almost empty. You STILL always find a “good” available domain. But in a country like Germany there are (and Germany is world champion in this) 17 Million .de ccTLD domains. People just can’t find ANY available domain anymore. In such a country obviously a city name based gTLD is attracting registrants much faster. But even in a 2 Million people country like Latvia: you always get some nice domain. Or you can buy one for small money. So in that respect: very small region or city based gTLDs might be snagged up by brands – but does that really hurt? Yes: the string is then unavailable for the constituents of the geo location – but nobody would ever have applied for the name to make available domains anyway. Again: Some exceptions to that rule will exist. There is a German word that is used in English as well: “Realpolitik”. I am such “Realist”. If we ask for too much in regard with protections of geo names – the outcome will be that the 2012 AGB provisions will not be changed; or rather stay in place. And then nobody is helped. Thanks, Alexander From: Maureen Hilyard [mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 7:30 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters Hi Alexander As well as, and sometimes despite, other arguments that have been discussed, I agree with your suggestion about the legitimate interest of the target community. While I represent a region which is still in the "underserved" category and live in a country of 15 thousand people (at the last census), our small community would also like to be notified seeking consent if a name of traditional or cultural significance was being proposed for any gtld purpose. Hypothetically, would our 15 thousand voices have the same affect for veto in the face of a business case that might be seen to benefit millions of others others outside of our realm? Maureen On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 2:03 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Hi Marita, "Dortmund" is a good example; albeit hypothetical: no such beer is existing. But there is a "JEVER" beer - a brand that I have seen in many countries. It's named after the city of Jever in northern Germany. I really don't think that a (any) brand that is "free-riding" (legally, though) on the positive image of a city community (built over centuries by their constituents) should be allowed to take the city's identity in the DNS "off market" - just to egoistically represent themselves. That doesn't "fly" in Germany. Actually in most if not all of Europe that wouldn't fly. However I think that especially for sizeable city entities such case would be rather rare: The main risk is that portfolio applicants are raiding geo name land globally, oblivious (unconcerned) of the target community's needs (interests) but only yielding the short lived requirements of their VC funders: making cash FAST! In a wood analogy that would be: Portfolio applicant: cut all the wood, and sell it; never mind the resulting erosion or lost living environment for the forests inhabitants. City constituent owned, funded and policied applicant: MANAGE the usage of the wood in a way that creates a balance for all involved parties and their interests. While we are elaborating about the narrative of "legitimate interest": I think it leads us down a rabbit hole by judging the potential "legitimate interest" of the applicant entity. In the end of the day it all boils down to have policies and an active TLD management in place that meets the legitimate interest of the TARGET COMMUNITY; and it is the obligation of the applicant to meet those interests! This is not about the egoistic "interest" of the applicant (e.g. the interest to make fast ROI for his investors). Maybe I have different priorities than Robin - but for me THE PEOPLE come first: not the "interest" of some applicant entity. A city name based gTLD is a piece of city infrastructure. It has to be suitable for the city's constituents. Their representatives (the city authority) is most likely best suited to evaluate whether the legitimate interests of said city community are being met. Alexander -----Original Message----- 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, September 24, 2018 2:15 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters Sorry Robin, I am trying to figure out what you mean in the following sentence: "Again, it would still prevent TLDs that have no legitimate interest in a geo-word from going forward, but it would allow for other legitimate users to have an opportunity to register the TLD of a word that falls into one of the existing geo-word categories as well." Suppose the beer company Dortmund wants to register .dortmund (a city in Germany) -- only to promote its brand. The beer does come from Dortmund so there is a city connection. Would that be legitimate or not in your book? What is "legitimate interest?" and "non-legitimate interest" and who decides? Thanks Marita On 9/23/2018 5:14 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

I disagree, Jorge. We already have an intended use standard for noncapital city names, so it is something that has already been part of the existing policy with respect to some categories of geo-names. This proposal just takes ICANN's existing policy for noncapital city names and applies it to the other categories of geo-names that are in the guidebook. Again, it would still prevent TLDs that have no legitimate interest in a geo-word from going forward, but it would allow for other legitimate users to have an opportunity to register the TLD of a word that falls into one of the existing geo-word categories as well. Rather than take a "one side takes all" approach as we currently have, which allows one interest to extract "rents" or other concessions from anyone who also has a legitimate interest in using that string, we could try to balance the legitimate interests in order to be fair to all sides. It is worth considering if we are sincere about finding a compromise.

Thanks, Robin

...

On Sep 21, 2018, at 8:04 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

Dear all

"Intended use" is very far from representing a compromise proposal.

We have had the debate on this idea for more than a year, so it is of little use and efficiency for us repeating arguments that are abundantly reflected on the record, and, as I recall, in the working document.

Let's see what the public consultation brings on these questions.

best regards

Jorge

ps: I'll be on leave some days, so excuse me if I don't react for a while.

________________________________

Von: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> > Datum: 21. September 2018 um 23:18:39 MESZ An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

Hello,

In follow-up to our WT5 meeting discussion earlier this week, I wanted to provide a more precise proposal for an amendment to policy requiring a govt. letter of support / non-objection from applicants of TLDs that are geo-words other than capital city names.

The goal here is to target the harm to be prevented from a misrepresentation that the TLD speaks for the local authority when it isn't the case, while also allowing for other legitimate uses of a geo-word TLD to go forward. So it is an attempt to balance two legitimate interests in a way that can find room for preventing the bad acts, but allowing lawful TLD uses to go forward. It is a proposal for compromise to find middle ground.

In short: applicants who intend to represent a connection to the authority of a non-capital city or other geo-category from the guidebook will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection as a means of verifying that connection.

However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the non-capital city or the other geo-categories from the guidebook, protections will be enhanced by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geo-word.

Putting aside capital cities, we will leave them as the policy currently exists, we would ONLY require the govt. letter for the other geo-words IF the use represents a connection to the authority. So that would apply to non-capital city names and sub-national, unesco, etc. categories where govt. letters are currently at issue.

More precisely worded proposal: Applicants who intend to represent a connection the the authority of a city, sub-national place, unesco region, or appearing on the "Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings" list will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection.

However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the geographic terms listed above, protections will instead be achieved by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geographic term.

I do invite comments, questions, and suggestions about this proposed amendment to the existing policy for geo-categories. I don't claim this is a perfect proposal, but discussion could possibly help lead us to a better policy that attempts to balance differing legitimate interests in a more nuanced way than what we've got now.

Thank you! Robin _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <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

I TOTALLY AGREE AND SHARE WHAT JORGE SAID. "intended use" is meaningless, as we concluded after many rounds of discussion. Giacomo -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: samedi 22 septembre 2018 05:05 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters Dear all "Intended use" is very far from representing a compromise proposal. We have had the debate on this idea for more than a year, so it is of little use and efficiency for us repeating arguments that are abundantly reflected on the record, and, as I recall, in the working document. Let's see what the public consultation brings on these questions. best regards Jorge ps: I'll be on leave some days, so excuse me if I don't react for a while. ________________________________ Von: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Datum: 21. September 2018 um 23:18:39 MESZ An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters Hello, In follow-up to our WT5 meeting discussion earlier this week, I wanted to provide a more precise proposal for an amendment to policy requiring a govt. letter of support / non-objection from applicants of TLDs that are geo-words other than capital city names. The goal here is to target the harm to be prevented from a misrepresentation that the TLD speaks for the local authority when it isn't the case, while also allowing for other legitimate uses of a geo-word TLD to go forward. So it is an attempt to balance two legitimate interests in a way that can find room for preventing the bad acts, but allowing lawful TLD uses to go forward. It is a proposal for compromise to find middle ground. In short: applicants who intend to represent a connection to the authority of a non-capital city or other geo-category from the guidebook will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection as a means of verifying that connection. However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the non-capital city or the other geo-categories from the guidebook, protections will be enhanced by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geo-word. Putting aside capital cities, we will leave them as the policy currently exists, we would ONLY require the govt. letter for the other geo-words IF the use represents a connection to the authority. So that would apply to non-capital city names and sub-national, unesco, etc. categories where govt. letters are currently at issue. More precisely worded proposal: Applicants who intend to represent a connection the the authority of a city, sub-national place, unesco region, or appearing on the "Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings" list will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection. However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the geographic terms listed above, protections will instead be achieved by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geographic term. I do invite comments, questions, and suggestions about this proposed amendment to the existing policy for geo-categories. I don't claim this is a perfect proposal, but discussion could possibly help lead us to a better policy that attempts to balance differing legitimate interests in a more nuanced way than what we've got now. Thank you! Robin _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway **************************************************

Dear Liz, You have set out an interesting resulting path to the suggested abolishing of the "intended use" concept. Permit me to further inquire with the group as to the role of letters of support or non-objection under this scenario -- would letters be required in the event an applied-for string is geographic name by any category defined the AGB (as drafted) or as determined by a geonames panel or if an objection is filed raising a "geographic name conflict etc"? Justine Chew ----- On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 19:17, Liz Williams via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> wrote:

Hello everyone

I have been watching these ongoing discussions carefully. The title of the email thread doesn’t capture the essence of my email but I wanted to test a couple of other ideas.

If there is consensus on “intended use being meaningless”and that “intended use” cannot be a gating factor for applicants to apply for TLDs then it means that “intended use” would

A) not be part of any application materials for evaluation purposes (for example, one could describe intended use as part of a business plan but it wouldn’t be used as a criteria against which an application is measured).

B) if “intended use” was not part of the application evaluation process then it logically follows that there should not be negative scores from independent evaluators or other panellists about what the applicant wishes to use the TLD for

C) it then follows that objections to any application on the basis of intended use would not be allowed?

This is quite a dramatic shift for us. If we had done things this way based on the 2007 policy and the 2012 AGB then it would have saved a lot of applicants who followed all the rules correctly a lot of heartache; it would have prevented many independent and external evaluations and it would have dramatically reduced, perhaps, interventions by the ICANN Board.

It opens the door for a fourth round of the expansion of the domain name system to be much clearer and less “interfering” in driving business plans of applicants. It minimises (perhaps to the point of irrelevance any community priority evaluations?) and it makes for a much flatter application structure. For me, those are good outcomes but others will have different opinions which I think we should tease out.

Very interested to hear other people’s views.

Liz

…. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +44 7824 877757 :: +61 436 020 595 W: www.lizwilliams.net 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 7 Oct 2018, at 10:49 am, Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone@ebu.ch> wrote:

I TOTALLY AGREE AND SHARE WHAT JORGE SAID. "intended use" is meaningless, as we concluded after many rounds of discussion. Giacomo

-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: samedi 22 septembre 2018 05:05 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

Dear all

"Intended use" is very far from representing a compromise proposal.

We have had the debate on this idea for more than a year, so it is of little use and efficiency for us repeating arguments that are abundantly reflected on the record, and, as I recall, in the working document.

Let's see what the public consultation brings on these questions.

best regards

Jorge

ps: I'll be on leave some days, so excuse me if I don't react for a while.

________________________________

Von: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Datum: 21. September 2018 um 23:18:39 MESZ An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

Hello,

In follow-up to our WT5 meeting discussion earlier this week, I wanted to provide a more precise proposal for an amendment to policy requiring a govt. letter of support / non-objection from applicants of TLDs that are geo-words other than capital city names.

The goal here is to target the harm to be prevented from a misrepresentation that the TLD speaks for the local authority when it isn't the case, while also allowing for other legitimate uses of a geo-word TLD to go forward. So it is an attempt to balance two legitimate interests in a way that can find room for preventing the bad acts, but allowing lawful TLD uses to go forward. It is a proposal for compromise to find middle ground.

In short: applicants who intend to represent a connection to the authority of a non-capital city or other geo-category from the guidebook will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection as a means of verifying that connection.

However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the non-capital city or the other geo-categories from the guidebook, protections will be enhanced by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geo-word.

Putting aside capital cities, we will leave them as the policy currently exists, we would ONLY require the govt. letter for the other geo-words IF the use represents a connection to the authority. So that would apply to non-capital city names and sub-national, unesco, etc. categories where govt. letters are currently at issue.

More precisely worded proposal: Applicants who intend to represent a connection the the authority of a city, sub-national place, unesco region, or appearing on the "Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings" list will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection.

However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the geographic terms listed above, protections will instead be achieved by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geographic term.

I do invite comments, questions, and suggestions about this proposed amendment to the existing policy for geo-categories. I don't claim this is a perfect proposal, but discussion could possibly help lead us to a better policy that attempts to balance differing legitimate interests in a more nuanced way than what we've got now.

Thank you! Robin _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway **************************************************

_______________________________________________ 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

Hello again, Liz, Thank you for your reply. I too am looking forward to hearing the views of others. If "intended use" is done away with then naturally "geo use" (as you put it) becomes irrelevant. However, as your reply confirms, that isn't the issue which needs grappling. A geographic name, however way that is established, is exactly that - a geographic name - and accordingly is one which recognizes a connection to a place and/or people of that place. And that is why I am keen to understand from others what role letters of support or non-objection - or even other mechanism(s) - might play in light of such recognition. Cheers, Justine Chew ----- On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 20:18, Liz Williams <internet.governance@icloud.com> wrote:

Hello Justine

I am looking forward to hearing the views of others. However, I have never been a fan of letters of “non-objection” which are arbitrary, can be removed at will and do not give adequate protections for either an applicant or the provider of a letter upon which an applicant may rely upon.

It might be that we are able to come up with good reasons for letters of support. How those would be woven into an application process, the weight they have (or not!) during evaluation and then used in implementation remains an open question. Is it pointless to require letters of support when they mean nothing in implementation?

An observation would be that there is no reason to maintain a “geo” use distinction if “intended use” is void. That also means that, for example, the distinction between “generics, brands, geo, communities” rapidly falls away. I think that is a good idea because we then avoid all kinds of “special treatment” exceptions to the rules which has caused plenty of (avoidable?) trouble.

Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +44 7824 877757 :: +61 436 020 595 W: www.lizwilliams.net 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 7 Oct 2018, at 1:08 pm, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Liz,

You have set out an interesting resulting path to the suggested abolishing of the "intended use" concept.

Permit me to further inquire with the group as to the role of letters of support or non-objection under this scenario -- would letters be required in the event an applied-for string is geographic name by any category defined in the AGB (as drafted) or as determined by a geonames panel or if an objection is filed raising a "geographic name conflict etc"?

Justine Chew -----

On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 19:17, Liz Williams via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> wrote:

...

Hello everyone

I have been watching these ongoing discussions carefully. The title of the email thread doesn’t capture the essence of my email but I wanted to test a couple of other ideas.

If there is consensus on “intended use being meaningless”and that “intended use” cannot be a gating factor for applicants to apply for TLDs then it means that “intended use” would

A) not be part of any application materials for evaluation purposes (for example, one could describe intended use as part of a business plan but it wouldn’t be used as a criteria against which an application is measured).

B) if “intended use” was not part of the application evaluation process then it logically follows that there should not be negative scores from independent evaluators or other panellists about what the applicant wishes to use the TLD for

C) it then follows that objections to any application on the basis of intended use would not be allowed?

This is quite a dramatic shift for us. If we had done things this way based on the 2007 policy and the 2012 AGB then it would have saved a lot of applicants who followed all the rules correctly a lot of heartache; it would have prevented many independent and external evaluations and it would have dramatically reduced, perhaps, interventions by the ICANN Board.

It opens the door for a fourth round of the expansion of the domain name system to be much clearer and less “interfering” in driving business plans of applicants. It minimises (perhaps to the point of irrelevance any community priority evaluations?) and it makes for a much flatter application structure. For me, those are good outcomes but others will have different opinions which I think we should tease out.

Very interested to hear other people’s views.

Liz

…. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +44 7824 877757 :: +61 436 020 595 W: www.lizwilliams.net 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 7 Oct 2018, at 10:49 am, Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone@ebu.ch> wrote:

I TOTALLY AGREE AND SHARE WHAT JORGE SAID. "intended use" is meaningless, as we concluded after many rounds of discussion. Giacomo

-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: samedi 22 septembre 2018 05:05 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

Dear all

"Intended use" is very far from representing a compromise proposal.

We have had the debate on this idea for more than a year, so it is of little use and efficiency for us repeating arguments that are abundantly reflected on the record, and, as I recall, in the working document.

Let's see what the public consultation brings on these questions.

best regards

Jorge

ps: I'll be on leave some days, so excuse me if I don't react for a while.

________________________________

Von: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Datum: 21. September 2018 um 23:18:39 MESZ An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

Hello,

In follow-up to our WT5 meeting discussion earlier this week, I wanted to provide a more precise proposal for an amendment to policy requiring a govt. letter of support / non-objection from applicants of TLDs that are geo-words other than capital city names.

The goal here is to target the harm to be prevented from a misrepresentation that the TLD speaks for the local authority when it isn't the case, while also allowing for other legitimate uses of a geo-word TLD to go forward. So it is an attempt to balance two legitimate interests in a way that can find room for preventing the bad acts, but allowing lawful TLD uses to go forward. It is a proposal for compromise to find middle ground.

In short: applicants who intend to represent a connection to the authority of a non-capital city or other geo-category from the guidebook will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection as a means of verifying that connection.

However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the non-capital city or the other geo-categories from the guidebook, protections will be enhanced by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geo-word.

Putting aside capital cities, we will leave them as the policy currently exists, we would ONLY require the govt. letter for the other geo-words IF the use represents a connection to the authority. So that would apply to non-capital city names and sub-national, unesco, etc. categories where govt. letters are currently at issue.

More precisely worded proposal: Applicants who intend to represent a connection the the authority of a city, sub-national place, unesco region, or appearing on the "Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings" list will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection.

However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the geographic terms listed above, protections will instead be achieved by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geographic term.

I do invite comments, questions, and suggestions about this proposed amendment to the existing policy for geo-categories. I don't claim this is a perfect proposal, but discussion could possibly help lead us to a better policy that attempts to balance differing legitimate interests in a more nuanced way than what we've got now.

Thank you! Robin _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway **************************************************

_______________________________________________ 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 Paul McGrady: I think that the Internet is changing the balance of the argument and the characteristics of the exceptions. Dual or multiple meanings that used to be innocuous in the past are likely to give rise to new risks in the future. Also, the existing cases of dual meanings are still actually a very small proportion of all geographical names, albeit among the better known ones (in English). Obviously, any well informed corporation or entrepreneur will by now have twigged that trying to label a product or a brand with a new geographical name will be unnecessarily risky. There is another aspect that bothers me. My understanding is that in certain jurisdictions, a domain name may be grounds for supporting an application for that name as a trademark. Should that practice ever be extended to TLDs and that TLDs were extended to geographical names, I could foresee a host of objections! Those risks would be largely removed if geographical TLDs were for geographical use and incorporated in the corresponding jurisdiction. Regards Christopher Wilkinson

El 7 de octubre de 2018 a las 21:36 "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com> escribió:

Hi Justine,

Thank you for your note. Your comments on built on the assumption that if a word is also a geo term, that the geo term would always be the default primary meaning of the word and that people would think of the geographic reference first. I don’t think such is the case and I have never seen any studies by linguists or other experts in language that would support that premise. And, I can easily think of examples where such would not be the case, for example, Alcoa, Tennessee (what comes immediately to mind is the giant Aluminum company that built a plant there) and also Cadillac, Michigan (again, the famous car line comes first to mind). So, I think we have to be extra careful not to assume that a term is a “geo term” first and foremost if it also happens to have a geographic reference. The geographic meaning may be less significant – depending on the strength of the other connotations.

Liz’s flat application structure is an interesting idea. I’d like to hear more about it from her and others on the list.

Best,

Paul

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2018 7:49 AM To: Liz Williams <internet.governance@icloud.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

Hello again, Liz,

Thank you for your reply. I too am looking forward to hearing the views of others.

If "intended use" is done away with then naturally "geo use" (as you put it) becomes irrelevant. However, as your reply confirms, that isn't the issue which needs grappling.

A geographic name, however way that is established, is exactly that - a geographic name - and accordingly is one which recognizes a connection to a place and/or people of that place. And that is why I am keen to understand from others what role letters of support or non-objection - or even other mechanism(s) - might play in light of such recognition.

Cheers,

Justine Chew -----

On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 20:18, Liz Williams <internet.governance@icloud.com mailto:internet.governance@icloud.com > wrote:

> >

...

Hello Justine

I am looking forward to hearing the views of others. However, I have never been a fan of letters of “non-objection” which are arbitrary, can be removed at will and do not give adequate protections for either an applicant or the provider of a letter upon which an applicant may rely upon.

It might be that we are able to come up with good reasons for letters of support. How those would be woven into an application process, the weight they have (or not!) during evaluation and then used in implementation remains an open question. Is it pointless to require letters of support when they mean nothing in implementation?

An observation would be that there is no reason to maintain a “geo” use distinction if “intended use” is void. That also means that, for example, the distinction between “generics, brands, geo, communities” rapidly falls away. I think that is a good idea because we then avoid all kinds of “special treatment” exceptions to the rules which has caused plenty of (avoidable?) trouble.

Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +44 7824 877757 :: +61 436 020 595

W: www.lizwilliams.net https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lizwilli...

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 7 Oct 2018, at 1:08 pm, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com > wrote:

Dear Liz,

You have set out an interesting resulting path to the suggested abolishing of the "intended use" concept.

Permit me to further inquire with the group as to the role of letters of support or non-objection under this scenario -- would letters be required in the event an applied-for string is geographic name by any category defined in the AGB (as drafted) or as determined by a geonames panel or if an objection is filed raising a "geographic name conflict etc"?

Justine Chew -----

On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 19:17, Liz Williams via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org > wrote:

> > > >

...

Hello everyone

I have been watching these ongoing discussions carefully. The title of the email thread doesn’t capture the essence of my email but I wanted to test a couple of other ideas.

If there is consensus on “intended use being meaningless”and that “intended use” cannot be a gating factor for applicants to apply for TLDs then it means that “intended use” would

A) not be part of any application materials for evaluation purposes (for example, one could describe intended use as part of a business plan but it wouldn’t be used as a criteria against which an application is measured).

B) if “intended use” was not part of the application evaluation process then it logically follows that there should not be negative scores from independent evaluators or other panellists about what the applicant wishes to use the TLD for

C) it then follows that objections to any application on the basis of intended use would not be allowed?

This is quite a dramatic shift for us. If we had done things this way based on the 2007 policy and the 2012 AGB then it would have saved a lot of applicants who followed all the rules correctly a lot of heartache; it would have prevented many independent and external evaluations and it would have dramatically reduced, perhaps, interventions by the ICANN Board.

It opens the door for a fourth round of the expansion of the domain name system to be much clearer and less “interfering” in driving business plans of applicants. It minimises (perhaps to the point of irrelevance any community priority evaluations?) and it makes for a much flatter application structure. For me, those are good outcomes but others will have different opinions which I think we should tease out.

Very interested to hear other people’s views.

Liz

…. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +44 7824 877757 :: +61 436 020 595

W: www.lizwilliams.net https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lizwilli...

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 7 Oct 2018, at 10:49 am, Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone@ebu.ch mailto:mazzone@ebu.ch > wrote:

I TOTALLY AGREE AND SHARE WHAT JORGE SAID. "intended use" is meaningless, as we concluded after many rounds of discussion. Giacomo

-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: samedi 22 septembre 2018 05:05 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

Dear all

"Intended use" is very far from representing a compromise proposal.

We have had the debate on this idea for more than a year, so it is of little use and efficiency for us repeating arguments that are abundantly reflected on the record, and, as I recall, in the working document.

Let's see what the public consultation brings on these questions.

best regards

Jorge

ps: I'll be on leave some days, so excuse me if I don't react for a while.

________________________________

Von: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org mailto:robin@ipjustice.org > Datum: 21. September 2018 um 23:18:39 MESZ An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org > Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

Hello,

In follow-up to our WT5 meeting discussion earlier this week, I wanted to provide a more precise proposal for an amendment to policy requiring a govt. letter of support / non-objection from applicants of TLDs that are geo-words other than capital city names.

The goal here is to target the harm to be prevented from a misrepresentation that the TLD speaks for the local authority when it isn't the case, while also allowing for other legitimate uses of a geo-word TLD to go forward. So it is an attempt to balance two legitimate interests in a way that can find room for preventing the bad acts, but allowing lawful TLD uses to go forward. It is a proposal for compromise to find middle ground.

In short: applicants who intend to represent a connection to the authority of a non-capital city or other geo-category from the guidebook will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection as a means of verifying that connection.

However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the non-capital city or the other geo-categories from the guidebook, protections will be enhanced by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geo-word.

Putting aside capital cities, we will leave them as the policy currently exists, we would ONLY require the govt. letter for the other geo-words IF the use represents a connection to the authority. So that would apply to non-capital city names and sub-national, unesco, etc. categories where govt. letters are currently at issue.

More precisely worded proposal: Applicants who intend to represent a connection the the authority of a city, sub-national place, unesco region, or appearing on the "Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings" list will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection.

However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the geographic terms listed above, protections will instead be achieved by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geographic term.

I do invite comments, questions, and suggestions about this proposed amendment to the existing policy for geo-categories. I don't claim this is a perfect proposal, but discussion could possibly help lead us to a better policy that attempts to balance differing legitimate interests in a more nuanced way than what we've got now.

Thank you! Robin _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org 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... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway **************************************************

_______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

you would not be allowed to apply for .wilkinson…

Certainly not. <Wilkinson> is already somebody else's trademark. I detail that I remind myself of every morning! CW

El 7 de octubre de 2018 a las 22:59 "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com> escribió:

Thanks Christopher. I enjoy reading your notes because your point of view is so very different from mine. But what you are suggesting has breathtaking free speech implications. For example, you would not be allowed to apply for .wilkinson and use it for your family or family business without seeking permission from Wilkinson, Indiana – population 448 and maybe even Charlotte, North Carolina (there is a Wilkinson Boulevard in Charlotte). Surely, that is no practical way to delegate TLDs (unless we are trying to establish a commercial environment in which ICANN gets a competitor that is not bogged down with such impediments to free speech and commerce.

Best,

Paul

From: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2018 3:51 PM To: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com>; Liz Williams <internet.governance@icloud.com>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

Dear Paul McGrady:

I think that the Internet is changing the balance of the argument and the characteristics of the exceptions.

Dual or multiple meanings that used to be innocuous in the past are likely to give rise to new risks in the future. Also, the existing cases of dual meanings are still actually a very small proportion of all geographical names, albeit among the better known ones (in English).

Obviously, any well informed corporation or entrepreneur will by now have twigged that trying to label a product or a brand with a new geographical name will be unnecessarily risky.

There is another aspect that bothers me. My understanding is that in certain jurisdictions, a domain name may be grounds for supporting an application for that name as a trademark. Should that practice ever be extended to TLDs and that TLDs were extended to geographical names, I could foresee a host of objections!

Those risks would be largely removed if geographical TLDs were for geographical use and incorporated in the corresponding jurisdiction.

Regards

Christopher Wilkinson

> >

...

El 7 de octubre de 2018 a las 21:36 "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com > escribió:

Hi Justine,

Thank you for your note. Your comments on built on the assumption that if a word is also a geo term, that the geo term would always be the default primary meaning of the word and that people would think of the geographic reference first. I don’t think such is the case and I have never seen any studies by linguists or other experts in language that would support that premise. And, I can easily think of examples where such would not be the case, for example, Alcoa, Tennessee (what comes immediately to mind is the giant Aluminum company that built a plant there) and also Cadillac, Michigan (again, the famous car line comes first to mind). So, I think we have to be extra careful not to assume that a term is a “geo term” first and foremost if it also happens to have a geographic reference. The geographic meaning may be less significant – depending on the strength of the other connotations.

Liz’s flat application structure is an interesting idea. I’d like to hear more about it from her and others on the list.

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 Justine Chew Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2018 7:49 AM To: Liz Williams <internet.governance@icloud.com mailto:internet.governance@icloud.com > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

Hello again, Liz,

Thank you for your reply. I too am looking forward to hearing the views of others.

If "intended use" is done away with then naturally "geo use" (as you put it) becomes irrelevant. However, as your reply confirms, that isn't the issue which needs grappling.

A geographic name, however way that is established, is exactly that - a geographic name - and accordingly is one which recognizes a connection to a place and/or people of that place. And that is why I am keen to understand from others what role letters of support or non-objection - or even other mechanism(s) - might play in light of such recognition.

Cheers,

Justine Chew -----

On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 20:18, Liz Williams <internet.governance@icloud.com mailto:internet.governance@icloud.com > wrote:

> > >

...

Hello Justine

I am looking forward to hearing the views of others. However, I have never been a fan of letters of “non-objection” which are arbitrary, can be removed at will and do not give adequate protections for either an applicant or the provider of a letter upon which an applicant may rely upon.

It might be that we are able to come up with good reasons for letters of support. How those would be woven into an application process, the weight they have (or not!) during evaluation and then used in implementation remains an open question. Is it pointless to require letters of support when they mean nothing in implementation?

An observation would be that there is no reason to maintain a “geo” use distinction if “intended use” is void. That also means that, for example, the distinction between “generics, brands, geo, communities” rapidly falls away. I think that is a good idea because we then avoid all kinds of “special treatment” exceptions to the rules which has caused plenty of (avoidable?) trouble.

Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +44 7824 877757 :: +61 436 020 595

W: www.lizwilliams.net https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lizwilli...

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 7 Oct 2018, at 1:08 pm, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com > wrote:

Dear Liz,

You have set out an interesting resulting path to the suggested abolishing of the "intended use" concept.

Permit me to further inquire with the group as to the role of letters of support or non-objection under this scenario -- would letters be required in the event an applied-for string is geographic name by any category defined in the AGB (as drafted) or as determined by a geonames panel or if an objection is filed raising a "geographic name conflict etc"?

Justine Chew -----

On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 19:17, Liz Williams via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org > wrote:

> > > > >

...

Hello everyone

I have been watching these ongoing discussions carefully. The title of the email thread doesn’t capture the essence of my email but I wanted to test a couple of other ideas.

If there is consensus on “intended use being meaningless”and that “intended use” cannot be a gating factor for applicants to apply for TLDs then it means that “intended use” would

A) not be part of any application materials for evaluation purposes (for example, one could describe intended use as part of a business plan but it wouldn’t be used as a criteria against which an application is measured).

B) if “intended use” was not part of the application evaluation process then it logically follows that there should not be negative scores from independent evaluators or other panellists about what the applicant wishes to use the TLD for

C) it then follows that objections to any application on the basis of intended use would not be allowed?

This is quite a dramatic shift for us. If we had done things this way based on the 2007 policy and the 2012 AGB then it would have saved a lot of applicants who followed all the rules correctly a lot of heartache; it would have prevented many independent and external evaluations and it would have dramatically reduced, perhaps, interventions by the ICANN Board.

It opens the door for a fourth round of the expansion of the domain name system to be much clearer and less “interfering” in driving business plans of applicants. It minimises (perhaps to the point of irrelevance any community priority evaluations?) and it makes for a much flatter application structure. For me, those are good outcomes but others will have different opinions which I think we should tease out.

Very interested to hear other people’s views.

Liz

…. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +44 7824 877757 :: +61 436 020 595

W: www.lizwilliams.net https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lizwilli...

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 7 Oct 2018, at 10:49 am, Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone@ebu.ch mailto:mazzone@ebu.ch > wrote:

I TOTALLY AGREE AND SHARE WHAT JORGE SAID. "intended use" is meaningless, as we concluded after many rounds of discussion. Giacomo

-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: samedi 22 septembre 2018 05:05 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

Dear all

"Intended use" is very far from representing a compromise proposal.

We have had the debate on this idea for more than a year, so it is of little use and efficiency for us repeating arguments that are abundantly reflected on the record, and, as I recall, in the working document.

Let's see what the public consultation brings on these questions.

best regards

Jorge

ps: I'll be on leave some days, so excuse me if I don't react for a while.

________________________________

Von: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org mailto:robin@ipjustice.org > Datum: 21. September 2018 um 23:18:39 MESZ An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org > Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

Hello,

In follow-up to our WT5 meeting discussion earlier this week, I wanted to provide a more precise proposal for an amendment to policy requiring a govt. letter of support / non-objection from applicants of TLDs that are geo-words other than capital city names.

The goal here is to target the harm to be prevented from a misrepresentation that the TLD speaks for the local authority when it isn't the case, while also allowing for other legitimate uses of a geo-word TLD to go forward. So it is an attempt to balance two legitimate interests in a way that can find room for preventing the bad acts, but allowing lawful TLD uses to go forward. It is a proposal for compromise to find middle ground.

In short: applicants who intend to represent a connection to the authority of a non-capital city or other geo-category from the guidebook will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection as a means of verifying that connection.

However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the non-capital city or the other geo-categories from the guidebook, protections will be enhanced by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geo-word.

Putting aside capital cities, we will leave them as the policy currently exists, we would ONLY require the govt. letter for the other geo-words IF the use represents a connection to the authority. So that would apply to non-capital city names and sub-national, unesco, etc. categories where govt. letters are currently at issue.

More precisely worded proposal: Applicants who intend to represent a connection the the authority of a city, sub-national place, unesco region, or appearing on the "Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings" list will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection.

However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the geographic terms listed above, protections will instead be achieved by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geographic term.

I do invite comments, questions, and suggestions about this proposed amendment to the existing policy for geo-categories. I don't claim this is a perfect proposal, but discussion could possibly help lead us to a better policy that attempts to balance differing legitimate interests in a more nuanced way than what we've got now.

Thank you! Robin _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org 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... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway **************************************************

_______________________________________________ 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

>

Hi Alexander, I think you may be assuming facts you don’t really know (for example, I have no particular insight into the relationship between Alcoa, Tennessee’s leadership and the Alcoa Company –and I suspect you don’t either). However, I do think that you and I understand each other’s positions – we just have a disagreement about the fundamental human right of free speech. Cities (or the Crown, or the Emperor, etc.), sizeable or otherwise, don’t own words; people do. Here is a great example of a geographic reference showing up in a trademark in a foreign country (the UK) that the City of Chicago has no legitimate interest in stopping: [cid:image001.jpg@01D45F36.79453B40] [cid:image002.jpg@01D45F36.79453B40] It is clearly a reference to the City of Chicago in Illinois, USA, which is famous for having pizza that is far better than New York’s nasty skinny pizza (I’m taunting you Greg S.). There are even short skyscrapers on the box which to someone who lives in the UK would be considered quite tall (this time I’m taunting Martin S.) and would naturally be associated with the City of Chicago where skyscrapers were invented and perfected. Even so, no one is going to believe that the City of Chicago is selling this pizza or endorsing this pizza. The real world market works just fine. Why wouldn’t we want the same real world principles to remain in the DNS rather than creating a bunch of new, non-existent rights for “sizeable” cities? Let’s stick with what works. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Monday, October 8, 2018 3:34 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters Dear Paul, You Do have a point there – and it has been made NUMEROUS times (even by me) – but you chose two terrible examples: · The city of Alcoa, TN, is the site of one of Alcoa’s biggest aluminum plants. It’s a company town: It’s “OWNED” by Alcoa. If the Alcao company asked the mayor of Alcoa for a letter of support: he would do so and while handing it over kiss the feet of the CEO: while the mayor’s wife would hand the CEO self-baked cookies and the mayor’s children would wash his car outside. So the letter of non-objection looks more like an INCENTIVE for the company! · Cadillac, MI, has 10,500 people. There is just no way that anybody in that city wants to run a gTLD. GM has 150 Billion in revenues – and sits in Detroit (MI). The city would likely gladly help out. GM and Michigan are married. GM is headquartered in Detroit. The city of Detroit was founded by one Antoine de la Mothe Cadillac, a French explorer. Go figure. That’s why they branded the cars “Cadillac”. That’s why the city was named Cadillac. But the problem exists – and it goes BOTH ways: · Brands living “off” the good name of a big city – without ANY contribution to it at all! · BIG brands facing smallish cities with the identical name (worst case: in another country). Hence my proposal to protect SIZEABLE cities. Within a 10,000 people city nobody will set up an applicant entity. And certainly nobody from outside. If somebody does: Let them do with consent of the city. If a brand wants to use it: let them do as well. However: if we have a SIZEABLE city facing the attempt of a commercial interest (a mere “brand”) to monopolize the entire city-name name-space: that’s just not going to fly. It’s horrible. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2018 10:36 PM To: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>>; Liz Williams <internet.governance@icloud.com<mailto:internet.governance@icloud.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters Hi Justine, Thank you for your note. Your comments on built on the assumption that if a word is also a geo term, that the geo term would always be the default primary meaning of the word and that people would think of the geographic reference first. I don’t think such is the case and I have never seen any studies by linguists or other experts in language that would support that premise. And, I can easily think of examples where such would not be the case, for example, Alcoa, Tennessee (what comes immediately to mind is the giant Aluminum company that built a plant there) and also Cadillac, Michigan (again, the famous car line comes first to mind). So, I think we have to be extra careful not to assume that a term is a “geo term” first and foremost if it also happens to have a geographic reference. The geographic meaning may be less significant – depending on the strength of the other connotations. Liz’s flat application structure is an interesting idea. I’d like to hear more about it from her and others on the list. 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 Justine Chew Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2018 7:49 AM To: Liz Williams <internet.governance@icloud.com<mailto:internet.governance@icloud.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters Hello again, Liz, Thank you for your reply. I too am looking forward to hearing the views of others. If "intended use" is done away with then naturally "geo use" (as you put it) becomes irrelevant. However, as your reply confirms, that isn't the issue which needs grappling. A geographic name, however way that is established, is exactly that - a geographic name - and accordingly is one which recognizes a connection to a place and/or people of that place. And that is why I am keen to understand from others what role letters of support or non-objection - or even other mechanism(s) - might play in light of such recognition. Cheers, Justine Chew ----- On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 20:18, Liz Williams <internet.governance@icloud.com<mailto:internet.governance@icloud.com>> wrote: Hello Justine I am looking forward to hearing the views of others. However, I have never been a fan of letters of “non-objection” which are arbitrary, can be removed at will and do not give adequate protections for either an applicant or the provider of a letter upon which an applicant may rely upon. It might be that we are able to come up with good reasons for letters of support. How those would be woven into an application process, the weight they have (or not!) during evaluation and then used in implementation remains an open question. Is it pointless to require letters of support when they mean nothing in implementation? An observation would be that there is no reason to maintain a “geo” use distinction if “intended use” is void. That also means that, for example, the distinction between “generics, brands, geo, communities” rapidly falls away. I think that is a good idea because we then avoid all kinds of “special treatment” exceptions to the rules which has caused plenty of (avoidable?) trouble. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +44 7824 877757 :: +61 436 020 595 W: www.lizwilliams.net<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lizwilli...> 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 7 Oct 2018, at 1:08 pm, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Liz, You have set out an interesting resulting path to the suggested abolishing of the "intended use" concept. Permit me to further inquire with the group as to the role of letters of support or non-objection under this scenario -- would letters be required in the event an applied-for string is geographic name by any category defined in the AGB (as drafted) or as determined by a geonames panel or if an objection is filed raising a "geographic name conflict etc"? Justine Chew ----- On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 19:17, Liz Williams via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> wrote: Hello everyone I have been watching these ongoing discussions carefully. The title of the email thread doesn’t capture the essence of my email but I wanted to test a couple of other ideas. If there is consensus on “intended use being meaningless”and that “intended use” cannot be a gating factor for applicants to apply for TLDs then it means that “intended use” would A) not be part of any application materials for evaluation purposes (for example, one could describe intended use as part of a business plan but it wouldn’t be used as a criteria against which an application is measured). B) if “intended use” was not part of the application evaluation process then it logically follows that there should not be negative scores from independent evaluators or other panellists about what the applicant wishes to use the TLD for C) it then follows that objections to any application on the basis of intended use would not be allowed? This is quite a dramatic shift for us. If we had done things this way based on the 2007 policy and the 2012 AGB then it would have saved a lot of applicants who followed all the rules correctly a lot of heartache; it would have prevented many independent and external evaluations and it would have dramatically reduced, perhaps, interventions by the ICANN Board. It opens the door for a fourth round of the expansion of the domain name system to be much clearer and less “interfering” in driving business plans of applicants. It minimises (perhaps to the point of irrelevance any community priority evaluations?) and it makes for a much flatter application structure. For me, those are good outcomes but others will have different opinions which I think we should tease out. Very interested to hear other people’s views. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +44 7824 877757 :: +61 436 020 595 W: www.lizwilliams.net<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lizwilli...> 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 7 Oct 2018, at 10:49 am, Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone@ebu.ch<mailto:mazzone@ebu.ch>> wrote: I TOTALLY AGREE AND SHARE WHAT JORGE SAID. "intended use" is meaningless, as we concluded after many rounds of discussion. Giacomo -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: samedi 22 septembre 2018 05:05 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters Dear all "Intended use" is very far from representing a compromise proposal. We have had the debate on this idea for more than a year, so it is of little use and efficiency for us repeating arguments that are abundantly reflected on the record, and, as I recall, in the working document. Let's see what the public consultation brings on these questions. best regards Jorge ps: I'll be on leave some days, so excuse me if I don't react for a while. ________________________________ Von: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Datum: 21. September 2018 um 23:18:39 MESZ An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters Hello, In follow-up to our WT5 meeting discussion earlier this week, I wanted to provide a more precise proposal for an amendment to policy requiring a govt. letter of support / non-objection from applicants of TLDs that are geo-words other than capital city names. The goal here is to target the harm to be prevented from a misrepresentation that the TLD speaks for the local authority when it isn't the case, while also allowing for other legitimate uses of a geo-word TLD to go forward. So it is an attempt to balance two legitimate interests in a way that can find room for preventing the bad acts, but allowing lawful TLD uses to go forward. It is a proposal for compromise to find middle ground. In short: applicants who intend to represent a connection to the authority of a non-capital city or other geo-category from the guidebook will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection as a means of verifying that connection. However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the non-capital city or the other geo-categories from the guidebook, protections will be enhanced by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geo-word. Putting aside capital cities, we will leave them as the policy currently exists, we would ONLY require the govt. letter for the other geo-words IF the use represents a connection to the authority. So that would apply to non-capital city names and sub-national, unesco, etc. categories where govt. letters are currently at issue. More precisely worded proposal: Applicants who intend to represent a connection the the authority of a city, sub-national place, unesco region, or appearing on the "Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings" list will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection. However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the geographic terms listed above, protections will instead be achieved by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geographic term. I do invite comments, questions, and suggestions about this proposed amendment to the existing policy for geo-categories. I don't claim this is a perfect proposal, but discussion could possibly help lead us to a better policy that attempts to balance differing legitimate interests in a more nuanced way than what we've got now. Thank you! Robin _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<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%7Ce2e6d3ab2cf44f956a7608d62d5d745d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636746276759079131&sdata=NFZhLri%2B%2Ffsg%2B9sYD9TUwe3%2FSSESAcKFd%2B5bhXSLQRw%3D&reserved=0> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** _______________________________________________ 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%7Ce2e6d3ab2cf44f956a7608d62d5d745d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636746276759089144&sdata=nwG6ohMOJQrK%2BNsdugSRyXsvqTMSw2bfVs2h72Ve1qo%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%7Ce2e6d3ab2cf44f956a7608d62d5d745d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636746276759089144&sdata=nwG6ohMOJQrK%2BNsdugSRyXsvqTMSw2bfVs2h72Ve1qo%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, what has a U.K. trademark that contains a U.S. city and is protecting pizzas to do with our task? There seems to be no connection at all. You state: “Cities (or the Crown, or the Emperor, etc.), sizeable or otherwise, don’t own words; people do.” Finally we are somewhat in agreement! I see that precisely like you: The good people of Chicago (or Shanghai, Frankfurt) have the “legitimate interest” in a string that is identical to their city name. This isn’t tied to any “ownership”. And why would “the city” be the “owner” of the string? Who is “the city”? The city government? The citizenry? The local stakeholders (business entities, organizations, associations, etc)? Most likely nobody “owns” a city. Most of the land is owned by citizens (private land), other land is owned by businesses; and yes: some by the city. But does that make them “owner” of the city – or by extension the city name? I doubt that. The city Government exists to SERVE the stakeholders and the citizenry of a city. And I get it: the trademark law is used to protect “rights owners”. These are usually (there are of course exceptions) companies – which have owners. But here I think we do not really work off the concept of “protecting ownership”. In my view we are protecting: * The legitimate interest of the prospective, local registrants: people, associations, businesses (and yes: the city government as well) – all entities who want to express themselves by using cityname-gTLD-based domains * The legitimate interest of the Internet users – who would like to use those domains to more confidently, secure and at more ease navigate the Internet! And that’s what I think we (gNSO, ICANN, WT5) are trying to achieve: protecting the legitimate interests of city citizenries and city stakeholders. NOT guarding some (inexistent) “ownership of sorts” (allegedly) held by the city government. Thanks, Alexander From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 2:43 AM To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters Hi Alexander, I think you may be assuming facts you don’t really know (for example, I have no particular insight into the relationship between Alcoa, Tennessee’s leadership and the Alcoa Company –and I suspect you don’t either). However, I do think that you and I understand each other’s positions – we just have a disagreement about the fundamental human right of free speech. Cities (or the Crown, or the Emperor, etc.), sizeable or otherwise, don’t own words; people do. Here is a great example of a geographic reference showing up in a trademark in a foreign country (the UK) that the City of Chicago has no legitimate interest in stopping: It is clearly a reference to the City of Chicago in Illinois, USA, which is famous for having pizza that is far better than New York’s nasty skinny pizza (I’m taunting you Greg S.). There are even short skyscrapers on the box which to someone who lives in the UK would be considered quite tall (this time I’m taunting Martin S.) and would naturally be associated with the City of Chicago where skyscrapers were invented and perfected. Even so, no one is going to believe that the City of Chicago is selling this pizza or endorsing this pizza. The real world market works just fine. Why wouldn’t we want the same real world principles to remain in the DNS rather than creating a bunch of new, non-existent rights for “sizeable” cities? Let’s stick with what works. 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, October 8, 2018 3:34 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters Dear Paul, You Do have a point there – and it has been made NUMEROUS times (even by me) – but you chose two terrible examples: * The city of Alcoa, TN, is the site of one of Alcoa’s biggest aluminum plants. It’s a company town: It’s “OWNED” by Alcoa. If the Alcao company asked the mayor of Alcoa for a letter of support: he would do so and while handing it over kiss the feet of the CEO: while the mayor’s wife would hand the CEO self-baked cookies and the mayor’s children would wash his car outside. So the letter of non-objection looks more like an INCENTIVE for the company! * Cadillac, MI, has 10,500 people. There is just no way that anybody in that city wants to run a gTLD. GM has 150 Billion in revenues – and sits in Detroit (MI). The city would likely gladly help out. GM and Michigan are married. GM is headquartered in Detroit. The city of Detroit was founded by one Antoine de la Mothe Cadillac, a French explorer. Go figure. That’s why they branded the cars “Cadillac”. That’s why the city was named Cadillac. But the problem exists – and it goes BOTH ways: * Brands living “off” the good name of a big city – without ANY contribution to it at all! * BIG brands facing smallish cities with the identical name (worst case: in another country). Hence my proposal to protect SIZEABLE cities. Within a 10,000 people city nobody will set up an applicant entity. And certainly nobody from outside. If somebody does: Let them do with consent of the city. If a brand wants to use it: let them do as well. However: if we have a SIZEABLE city facing the attempt of a commercial interest (a mere “brand”) to monopolize the entire city-name name-space: that’s just not going to fly. It’s horrible. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2018 10:36 PM To: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com <mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com> >; Liz Williams <internet.governance@icloud.com <mailto:internet.governance@icloud.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters Hi Justine, Thank you for your note. Your comments on built on the assumption that if a word is also a geo term, that the geo term would always be the default primary meaning of the word and that people would think of the geographic reference first. I don’t think such is the case and I have never seen any studies by linguists or other experts in language that would support that premise. And, I can easily think of examples where such would not be the case, for example, Alcoa, Tennessee (what comes immediately to mind is the giant Aluminum company that built a plant there) and also Cadillac, Michigan (again, the famous car line comes first to mind). So, I think we have to be extra careful not to assume that a term is a “geo term” first and foremost if it also happens to have a geographic reference. The geographic meaning may be less significant – depending on the strength of the other connotations. Liz’s flat application structure is an interesting idea. I’d like to hear more about it from her and others on the list. 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 Justine Chew Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2018 7:49 AM To: Liz Williams <internet.governance@icloud.com <mailto:internet.governance@icloud.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters Hello again, Liz, Thank you for your reply. I too am looking forward to hearing the views of others. If "intended use" is done away with then naturally "geo use" (as you put it) becomes irrelevant. However, as your reply confirms, that isn't the issue which needs grappling. A geographic name, however way that is established, is exactly that - a geographic name - and accordingly is one which recognizes a connection to a place and/or people of that place. And that is why I am keen to understand from others what role letters of support or non-objection - or even other mechanism(s) - might play in light of such recognition. Cheers, Justine Chew ----- On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 20:18, Liz Williams <internet.governance@icloud.com <mailto:internet.governance@icloud.com> > wrote: Hello Justine I am looking forward to hearing the views of others. However, I have never been a fan of letters of “non-objection” which are arbitrary, can be removed at will and do not give adequate protections for either an applicant or the provider of a letter upon which an applicant may rely upon. It might be that we are able to come up with good reasons for letters of support. How those would be woven into an application process, the weight they have (or not!) during evaluation and then used in implementation remains an open question. Is it pointless to require letters of support when they mean nothing in implementation? An observation would be that there is no reason to maintain a “geo” use distinction if “intended use” is void. That also means that, for example, the distinction between “generics, brands, geo, communities” rapidly falls away. I think that is a good idea because we then avoid all kinds of “special treatment” exceptions to the rules which has caused plenty of (avoidable?) trouble. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +44 7824 877757 :: +61 436 020 595 W: www.lizwilliams.net <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lizwilli...> 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 7 Oct 2018, at 1:08 pm, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com <mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear Liz, You have set out an interesting resulting path to the suggested abolishing of the "intended use" concept. Permit me to further inquire with the group as to the role of letters of support or non-objection under this scenario -- would letters be required in the event an applied-for string is geographic name by any category defined in the AGB (as drafted) or as determined by a geonames panel or if an objection is filed raising a "geographic name conflict etc"? Justine Chew ----- On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 19:17, Liz Williams via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > wrote: Hello everyone I have been watching these ongoing discussions carefully. The title of the email thread doesn’t capture the essence of my email but I wanted to test a couple of other ideas. If there is consensus on “intended use being meaningless”and that “intended use” cannot be a gating factor for applicants to apply for TLDs then it means that “intended use” would A) not be part of any application materials for evaluation purposes (for example, one could describe intended use as part of a business plan but it wouldn’t be used as a criteria against which an application is measured). B) if “intended use” was not part of the application evaluation process then it logically follows that there should not be negative scores from independent evaluators or other panellists about what the applicant wishes to use the TLD for C) it then follows that objections to any application on the basis of intended use would not be allowed? This is quite a dramatic shift for us. If we had done things this way based on the 2007 policy and the 2012 AGB then it would have saved a lot of applicants who followed all the rules correctly a lot of heartache; it would have prevented many independent and external evaluations and it would have dramatically reduced, perhaps, interventions by the ICANN Board. It opens the door for a fourth round of the expansion of the domain name system to be much clearer and less “interfering” in driving business plans of applicants. It minimises (perhaps to the point of irrelevance any community priority evaluations?) and it makes for a much flatter application structure. For me, those are good outcomes but others will have different opinions which I think we should tease out. Very interested to hear other people’s views. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +44 7824 877757 :: +61 436 020 595 W: www.lizwilliams.net <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lizwilli...> 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 7 Oct 2018, at 10:49 am, Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone@ebu.ch <mailto:mazzone@ebu.ch> > wrote: I TOTALLY AGREE AND SHARE WHAT JORGE SAID. "intended use" is meaningless, as we concluded after many rounds of discussion. Giacomo -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: samedi 22 septembre 2018 05:05 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters Dear all "Intended use" is very far from representing a compromise proposal. We have had the debate on this idea for more than a year, so it is of little use and efficiency for us repeating arguments that are abundantly reflected on the record, and, as I recall, in the working document. Let's see what the public consultation brings on these questions. best regards Jorge ps: I'll be on leave some days, so excuse me if I don't react for a while. ________________________________ Von: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> > Datum: 21. September 2018 um 23:18:39 MESZ An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters Hello, In follow-up to our WT5 meeting discussion earlier this week, I wanted to provide a more precise proposal for an amendment to policy requiring a govt. letter of support / non-objection from applicants of TLDs that are geo-words other than capital city names. The goal here is to target the harm to be prevented from a misrepresentation that the TLD speaks for the local authority when it isn't the case, while also allowing for other legitimate uses of a geo-word TLD to go forward. So it is an attempt to balance two legitimate interests in a way that can find room for preventing the bad acts, but allowing lawful TLD uses to go forward. It is a proposal for compromise to find middle ground. In short: applicants who intend to represent a connection to the authority of a non-capital city or other geo-category from the guidebook will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection as a means of verifying that connection. However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the non-capital city or the other geo-categories from the guidebook, protections will be enhanced by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geo-word. Putting aside capital cities, we will leave them as the policy currently exists, we would ONLY require the govt. letter for the other geo-words IF the use represents a connection to the authority. So that would apply to non-capital city names and sub-national, unesco, etc. categories where govt. letters are currently at issue. More precisely worded proposal: Applicants who intend to represent a connection the the authority of a city, sub-national place, unesco region, or appearing on the "Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings" list will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection. However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the geographic terms listed above, protections will instead be achieved by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geographic term. I do invite comments, questions, and suggestions about this proposed amendment to the existing policy for geo-categories. I don't claim this is a perfect proposal, but discussion could possibly help lead us to a better policy that attempts to balance differing legitimate interests in a more nuanced way than what we've got now. Thank you! Robin _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <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...> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** _______________________________________________ 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.

Hello Kavouss Could you please send your message as there seems to be some auto-correct problems with the text? I was not stating that there was consensus on anything, I was asking a question about if there was then what the consequences of that would be. In any event, could you send your message again so I am clear on the point you were making? Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +44 7824 877757 :: +61 436 020 595 W: www.lizwilliams.net 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 9 Oct 2018, at 3:29 am, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Liz Dear All I am not aware of any consensus being reached on that regard I am not sure Wetherspoon all those advantages ( clear .,,,) Could be associated with non application of the terms and conditions of « intended use » Regards Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 7 Oct 2018, at 21:08, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com <mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>> wrote:

...

Dear Liz,

You have set out an interesting resulting path to the suggested abolishing of the "intended use" concept.

Permit me to further inquire with the group as to the role of letters of support or non-objection under this scenario -- would letters be required in the event an applied-for string is geographic name by any category defined the AGB (as drafted) or as determined by a geonames panel or if an objection is filed raising a "geographic name conflict etc"?

Justine Chew -----

On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 19:17, Liz Williams via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> wrote: Hello everyone

I have been watching these ongoing discussions carefully. The title of the email thread doesn’t capture the essence of my email but I wanted to test a couple of other ideas.

If there is consensus on “intended use being meaningless”and that “intended use” cannot be a gating factor for applicants to apply for TLDs then it means that “intended use” would

A) not be part of any application materials for evaluation purposes (for example, one could describe intended use as part of a business plan but it wouldn’t be used as a criteria against which an application is measured).

B) if “intended use” was not part of the application evaluation process then it logically follows that there should not be negative scores from independent evaluators or other panellists about what the applicant wishes to use the TLD for

C) it then follows that objections to any application on the basis of intended use would not be allowed?

This is quite a dramatic shift for us. If we had done things this way based on the 2007 policy and the 2012 AGB then it would have saved a lot of applicants who followed all the rules correctly a lot of heartache; it would have prevented many independent and external evaluations and it would have dramatically reduced, perhaps, interventions by the ICANN Board.

It opens the door for a fourth round of the expansion of the domain name system to be much clearer and less “interfering” in driving business plans of applicants. It minimises (perhaps to the point of irrelevance any community priority evaluations?) and it makes for a much flatter application structure. For me, those are good outcomes but others will have different opinions which I think we should tease out.

Very interested to hear other people’s views.

Liz

…. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +44 7824 877757 :: +61 436 020 595 W: www.lizwilliams.net <http://www.lizwilliams.net/> 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 7 Oct 2018, at 10:49 am, Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone@ebu.ch <mailto:mazzone@ebu.ch>> wrote:

I TOTALLY AGREE AND SHARE WHAT JORGE SAID. "intended use" is meaningless, as we concluded after many rounds of discussion. Giacomo

-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto: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: samedi 22 septembre 2018 05:05 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

Dear all

"Intended use" is very far from representing a compromise proposal.

We have had the debate on this idea for more than a year, so it is of little use and efficiency for us repeating arguments that are abundantly reflected on the record, and, as I recall, in the working document.

Let's see what the public consultation brings on these questions.

best regards

Jorge

ps: I'll be on leave some days, so excuse me if I don't react for a while.

________________________________

Von: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Datum: 21. September 2018 um 23:18:39 MESZ An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

Hello,

In follow-up to our WT5 meeting discussion earlier this week, I wanted to provide a more precise proposal for an amendment to policy requiring a govt. letter of support / non-objection from applicants of TLDs that are geo-words other than capital city names.

The goal here is to target the harm to be prevented from a misrepresentation that the TLD speaks for the local authority when it isn't the case, while also allowing for other legitimate uses of a geo-word TLD to go forward. So it is an attempt to balance two legitimate interests in a way that can find room for preventing the bad acts, but allowing lawful TLD uses to go forward. It is a proposal for compromise to find middle ground.

In short: applicants who intend to represent a connection to the authority of a non-capital city or other geo-category from the guidebook will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection as a means of verifying that connection.

However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the non-capital city or the other geo-categories from the guidebook, protections will be enhanced by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geo-word.

Putting aside capital cities, we will leave them as the policy currently exists, we would ONLY require the govt. letter for the other geo-words IF the use represents a connection to the authority. So that would apply to non-capital city names and sub-national, unesco, etc. categories where govt. letters are currently at issue.

More precisely worded proposal: Applicants who intend to represent a connection the the authority of a city, sub-national place, unesco region, or appearing on the "Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings" list will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection.

However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the geographic terms listed above, protections will instead be achieved by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geographic term.

I do invite comments, questions, and suggestions about this proposed amendment to the existing policy for geo-categories. I don't claim this is a perfect proposal, but discussion could possibly help lead us to a better policy that attempts to balance differing legitimate interests in a more nuanced way than what we've got now.

Thank you! Robin _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <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> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway **************************************************

_______________________________________________ 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>

_______________________________________________ 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>_______________________________________________ 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>

Me too fully agree and share view points of Jorge We must work together and fully understand each other ‘s position and find a mutually agreed workable resolution of the batter . GAC has always did it’s best and now expecting similar behavior from GNSO Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone

On 7 Oct 2018, at 18:49, Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone@ebu.ch> wrote:

I TOTALLY AGREE AND SHARE WHAT JORGE SAID. "intended use" is meaningless, as we concluded after many rounds of discussion. Giacomo

-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: samedi 22 septembre 2018 05:05 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

Dear all

"Intended use" is very far from representing a compromise proposal.

We have had the debate on this idea for more than a year, so it is of little use and efficiency for us repeating arguments that are abundantly reflected on the record, and, as I recall, in the working document.

Let's see what the public consultation brings on these questions.

best regards

Jorge

ps: I'll be on leave some days, so excuse me if I don't react for a while.

________________________________

Von: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Datum: 21. September 2018 um 23:18:39 MESZ An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

Hello,

In follow-up to our WT5 meeting discussion earlier this week, I wanted to provide a more precise proposal for an amendment to policy requiring a govt. letter of support / non-objection from applicants of TLDs that are geo-words other than capital city names.

The goal here is to target the harm to be prevented from a misrepresentation that the TLD speaks for the local authority when it isn't the case, while also allowing for other legitimate uses of a geo-word TLD to go forward. So it is an attempt to balance two legitimate interests in a way that can find room for preventing the bad acts, but allowing lawful TLD uses to go forward. It is a proposal for compromise to find middle ground.

In short: applicants who intend to represent a connection to the authority of a non-capital city or other geo-category from the guidebook will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection as a means of verifying that connection.

However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the non-capital city or the other geo-categories from the guidebook, protections will be enhanced by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geo-word.

Putting aside capital cities, we will leave them as the policy currently exists, we would ONLY require the govt. letter for the other geo-words IF the use represents a connection to the authority. So that would apply to non-capital city names and sub-national, unesco, etc. categories where govt. letters are currently at issue.

More precisely worded proposal: Applicants who intend to represent a connection the the authority of a city, sub-national place, unesco region, or appearing on the "Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings" list will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection.

However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the geographic terms listed above, protections will instead be achieved by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geographic term.

I do invite comments, questions, and suggestions about this proposed amendment to the existing policy for geo-categories. I don't claim this is a perfect proposal, but discussion could possibly help lead us to a better policy that attempts to balance differing legitimate interests in a more nuanced way than what we've got now.

Thank you! Robin _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway **************************************************

_______________________________________________ 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 tend to agree withChristopher that the argument submitted by Robin is misleading to some extent as partly indicated by Christopher. I do not understand the the term " HARM " and it sscopescope. Harm could be financial It could be technical It could be admnistrative It could be caltural it could prevention for future uise It could be against freedom of expression By the way, Robion has not replied to the questions that I raised. I therefroe do not agree with her so- called compromise which is subordination and not compromise Regards Kavouss On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 7:43 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

Dear Robin Gross:

Thankyou. But having read your more detailed explanation, below, I must say that won't do at all.

1. Your argument presupposes that the applicant has a right to use a geo-name for whatever purpose and only that one would seek to prevent 'harm' from misrepresentation. I consider that would not be widely acceptable in the world at large.

2. The primary 'harm' from non-geo use is that present or future use of that unique string would become unavailable for its geo-purposes.

3. This is really not a matter for compromise within WT5. Most of the interests principally concerned are not directly represented in WT5.

4. Regarding the underlying philosophy of this question, we are no longer in the nineteenth century American West; we are in the post-colonial twenty-first century. It is incumbent upon us all not to re-create in the digital age the mistakes and injustices of the past.

Regards

Christopher Wilkinson

El 21 de septiembre de 2018 a las 23:18 Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> escribió:

Hello,

In follow-up to our WT5 meeting discussion earlier this week, I wanted to provide a more precise proposal for an amendment to policy requiring a govt. letter of support / non-objection from applicants of TLDs that are geo-words other than capital city names.

The goal here is to target the harm to be prevented from a misrepresentation that the TLD speaks for the local authority when it isn’t the case, while also allowing for other legitimate uses of a geo-word TLD to go forward. So it is an attempt to balance two legitimate interests in a way that can find room for preventing the bad acts, but allowing lawful TLD uses to go forward. It is a proposal for compromise to find middle ground.

In short: applicants who intend to represent a connection to the authority of a non-capital city or other geo-category from the guidebook will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection as a means of verifying that connection.

However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the non-capital city or the other geo-categories from the guidebook, protections will be enhanced by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geo-word.

Putting aside capital cities, we will leave them as the policy currently exists, we would ONLY require the govt. letter for the other geo-words IF the use represents a connection to the authority. So that would apply to non-capital city names and sub-national, unesco, etc. categories where govt. letters are currently at issue.

More precisely worded proposal: *Applicants who intend to represent a connection the the authority of a city, sub-national place, unesco region, or appearing on the “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings” list will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection.*

*However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to the authority of the geographic terms listed above, protections will instead be achieved by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection or association to the geographic term.*

I do invite comments, questions, and suggestions about this proposed amendment to the existing policy for geo-categories. I don’t claim this is a perfect proposal, but discussion could possibly help lead us to a better policy that attempts to balance differing legitimate interests in a more nuanced way than what we’ve got now.

Thank you! Robin

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5