Initial Report next steps and deadline for input - Friday 16 November
Dear Work Track 5 members, Thanks to all who have submitted comments about the draft Initial Report on the mailing list and those who were able to join the call yesterday to go through some of the comments received that may require further discussion. Please find attached a revised draft of the report incorporating feedback received on the call. As a reminder, the target date for publishing the Initial Report is 20 November. In view of this timeline, the Work Track leadership team kindly requests that members submit any final feedback on the Initial Report no later than Friday 16 November. You can either insert comments in a copy of the attached document and send to the WT5 mailing list or send your comments in the body of an email to the WT5 list, identifying the page and line number of the text you are referencing. Below you will find some of the questions/concerns raised in comments by members that still may need additional input. The leadership team is sending these on the mailing list to make sure that all members have a chance to provide feedback, even if they were not able to join the call. * On page 17 (recommendations section of the report) two WT members commented that they felt it was premature to include any preliminary recommendation in the Initial Report on the topic of non-capital city names. Do you support removing preliminary recommendation 11 on treatment of non-capital city names? Or do you favor leaving the recommendation in the report, noting that it can be changed for the Final Report based on community input and further discussion in the Work Track? Regardless of whether the recommendation is kept or removed, there are two questions for community input on this topic (e10 and e11) included in the Initial Report, so the group can expect additional community feedback through public comment to support further deliberations. * On page 40 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Once a gTLD is registered with an intended use that is geographic in nature, all other variations and translations of this term are unconditionally available for registration.” Another Work Track member requested clarification on the meaning of “unconditionally available” and also requested clarification about which entities might be able to apply for these variations and translations under the proposal. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification? * On page 41 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Applicants for geographic names must apply to the GAC to receive permission to submit an application for the string.” Another Work Track member requested clarification about the scope and meaning of this proposal, including how it would interact with other requirements. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification? * On page 76 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Apply a "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected. No objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration.” Other Work Track members raised concern that the term “bright line” rule may not be widely used and understood, and further requested clarification on the scope of this rule and the basis for protection. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification? Note that Work Track members are welcome to comment on any other parts of the draft in addition to the items listed above. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
Dear Emily Barabas and WT5 members : Thankyou for the message of 8 November. I have a few comments on the four questions posed : 1. Recommendation 11: I do not support deleting the recommendation. However, I request that it be amended to remove the distinction between geo-use and non-geo-use thus requiring prior non-objection for all non-capital city names. 2. 'unconditional availability' language: I do not support this proposal. (Actually I have no recollection of it having been discussed by the WT): (a) I expect that the ICANN community will discover that in multilingual countries, there is usually no formal hierarchy of language versions of the same geo-name. Thus all versions of a name – at least in official and local languages and scripts – would have to be treated equally. There is likely to be no basis in local law or practice for awarding any priority to any one language version of a particular name. (b) There is scope for 'gaming' the proposal. I leave that to your imaginations! This proposal is not a good idea. 3. '…applicants must apply to the GAC': I would defer to the GAC members of WT5 on this point. I suggest that it would be more appropriate to say that 'applicants should apply to the GAC member concerned….' It is not necessary to presume on a GAC consensus in such cases. 4. The “Bright Line” rule (p. 75): I do not support this proposal. ICANN and the Community have no grounds for determining which geo-names are 'explicitly and expressly' (sic) protected, and which are not. I think it would depend very much on who you ask! Would ICANN's outreach include going round the world telling folk that the names of the places where they live are not protected? In other respects I shall post any additional comments to the Public Consultation. Best regards Christopher Wilkinson PS: I shall miss tomorrow's call, travelling. With apologies.
El 8 de noviembre de 2018 a las 20:09 Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> escribió:
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Thanks to all who have submitted comments about the draft Initial Report on the mailing list and those who were able to join the call yesterday to go through some of the comments received that may require further discussion. Please find attached a revised draft of the report incorporating feedback received on the call. As a reminder, the target date for publishing the Initial Report is 20 November. In view of this timeline, the Work Track leadership team kindly requests that members submit any final feedback on the Initial Report no later than Friday 16 November. You can either insert comments in a copy of the attached document and send to the WT5 mailing list or send your comments in the body of an email to the WT5 list, identifying the page and line number of the text you are referencing.
Below you will find some of the questions/concerns raised in comments by members that still may need additional input. The leadership team is sending these on the mailing list to make sure that all members have a chance to provide feedback, even if they were not able to join the call.
* On page 17 (recommendations section of the report) two WT members commented that they felt it was premature to include any preliminary recommendation in the Initial Report on the topic of non-capital city names. Do you support removing preliminary recommendation 11 on treatment of non-capital city names? Or do you favor leaving the recommendation in the report, noting that it can be changed for the Final Report based on community input and further discussion in the Work Track? Regardless of whether the recommendation is kept or removed, there are two questions for community input on this topic (e10 and e11) included in the Initial Report, so the group can expect additional community feedback through public comment to support further deliberations. * On page 40 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Once a gTLD is registered with an intended use that is geographic in nature, all other variations and translations of this term are unconditionally available for registration.” Another Work Track member requested clarification on the meaning of “unconditionally available” and also requested clarification about which entities might be able to apply for these variations and translations under the proposal. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification? * On page 41 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Applicants for geographic names must apply to the GAC to receive permission to submit an application for the string.” Another Work Track member requested clarification about the scope and meaning of this proposal, including how it would interact with other requirements. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification? * On page 76 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Apply a "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected. No objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration.” Other Work Track members raised concern that the term “bright line” rule may not be widely used and understood, and further requested clarification on the scope of this rule and the basis for protection. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification?
Note that Work Track members are welcome to comment on any other parts of the draft in addition to the items listed above.
Kind regards,
Emily
Emily Barabas | Policy Manager
ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Hi, I want to second Christopher here: The “Bright Line” rule (p. 75): I do not support this proposal. I also do not support the “bright line” rule. The rule does LITERALLY make no sense at all. Why would we eliminate the opportunity to object? On what basis? That’s entirely bonkers – and the GAC should keep an eye on this one: this is the attempt to silence countries on both; the Governmental and the civil society level. No. Just: NO! The right to object is a fundamental civil liberty right and there can’t be ANY policy limiting it in ANY way. This is how dictatorships silence opposition. Not at ICANN. Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 7:18 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Initial Report next steps and deadline for input - Friday 16 November Dear Emily Barabas and WT5 members : Thankyou for the message of 8 November. I have a few comments on the four questions posed : 1. Recommendation 11: I do not support deleting the recommendation. However, I request that it be amended to remove the distinction between geo-use and non-geo-use thus requiring prior non-objection for all non-capital city names. 2. 'unconditional availability' language: I do not support this proposal. (Actually I have no recollection of it having been discussed by the WT): (a) I expect that the ICANN community will discover that in multilingual countries, there is usually no formal hierarchy of language versions of the same geo-name. Thus all versions of a name – at least in official and local languages and scripts – would have to be treated equally. There is likely to be no basis in local law or practice for awarding any priority to any one language version of a particular name. (b) There is scope for 'gaming' the proposal. I leave that to your imaginations! This proposal is not a good idea. 3. '…applicants must apply to the GAC': I would defer to the GAC members of WT5 on this point. I suggest that it would be more appropriate to say that 'applicants should apply to the GAC member concerned….' It is not necessary to presume on a GAC consensus in such cases. 4. The “Bright Line” rule (p. 75): I do not support this proposal. ICANN and the Community have no grounds for determining which geo-names are 'explicitly and expressly' (sic) protected, and which are not. I think it would depend very much on who you ask! Would ICANN's outreach include going round the world telling folk that the names of the places where they live are not protected? In other respects I shall post any additional comments to the Public Consultation. Best regards Christopher Wilkinson PS: I shall miss tomorrow's call, travelling. With apologies. El 8 de noviembre de 2018 a las 20:09 Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> > escribió: Dear Work Track 5 members, Thanks to all who have submitted comments about the draft Initial Report on the mailing list and those who were able to join the call yesterday to go through some of the comments received that may require further discussion. Please find attached a revised draft of the report incorporating feedback received on the call. As a reminder, the target date for publishing the Initial Report is 20 November. In view of this timeline, the Work Track leadership team kindly requests that members submit any final feedback on the Initial Report no later than Friday 16 November. You can either insert comments in a copy of the attached document and send to the WT5 mailing list or send your comments in the body of an email to the WT5 list, identifying the page and line number of the text you are referencing. Below you will find some of the questions/concerns raised in comments by members that still may need additional input. The leadership team is sending these on the mailing list to make sure that all members have a chance to provide feedback, even if they were not able to join the call. * On page 17 (recommendations section of the report) two WT members commented that they felt it was premature to include any preliminary recommendation in the Initial Report on the topic of non-capital city names. Do you support removing preliminary recommendation 11 on treatment of non-capital city names? Or do you favor leaving the recommendation in the report, noting that it can be changed for the Final Report based on community input and further discussion in the Work Track? Regardless of whether the recommendation is kept or removed, there are two questions for community input on this topic (e10 and e11) included in the Initial Report, so the group can expect additional community feedback through public comment to support further deliberations. * On page 40 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Once a gTLD is registered with an intended use that is geographic in nature, all other variations and translations of this term are unconditionally available for registration.” Another Work Track member requested clarification on the meaning of “unconditionally available” and also requested clarification about which entities might be able to apply for these variations and translations under the proposal. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification? * On page 41 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Applicants for geographic names must apply to the GAC to receive permission to submit an application for the string.” Another Work Track member requested clarification about the scope and meaning of this proposal, including how it would interact with other requirements. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification? * On page 76 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Apply a "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected. No objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration.” Other Work Track members raised concern that the term “bright line” rule may not be widely used and understood, and further requested clarification on the scope of this rule and the basis for protection. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification? Note that Work Track members are welcome to comment on any other parts of the draft in addition to the items listed above. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 _______________________________________________ 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 all I broadly support Christopher‘s points. regards from the IGF in Paris Jorge ________________________________ Von: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Datum: 13. November 2018 um 18:34:20 MEZ Bis: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Initial Report next steps and deadline for input - Friday 16 November Hi, I want to second Christopher here: The “Bright Line” rule (p. 75): I do not support this proposal. I also do not support the “bright line” rule. The rule does LITERALLY make no sense at all. Why would we eliminate the opportunity to object? On what basis? That’s entirely bonkers – and the GAC should keep an eye on this one: this is the attempt to silence countries on both; the Governmental and the civil society level. No. Just: NO! The right to object is a fundamental civil liberty right and there can’t be ANY policy limiting it in ANY way. This is how dictatorships silence opposition. Not at ICANN. Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 7:18 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Initial Report next steps and deadline for input - Friday 16 November Dear Emily Barabas and WT5 members : Thankyou for the message of 8 November. I have a few comments on the four questions posed : 1. Recommendation 11: I do not support deleting the recommendation. However, I request that it be amended to remove the distinction between geo-use and non-geo-use thus requiring prior non-objection for all non-capital city names. 2. 'unconditional availability' language: I do not support this proposal. (Actually I have no recollection of it having been discussed by the WT): (a) I expect that the ICANN community will discover that in multilingual countries, there is usually no formal hierarchy of language versions of the same geo-name. Thus all versions of a name – at least in official and local languages and scripts – would have to be treated equally. There is likely to be no basis in local law or practice for awarding any priority to any one language version of a particular name. (b) There is scope for 'gaming' the proposal. I leave that to your imaginations! This proposal is not a good idea. 3. '…applicants must apply to the GAC': I would defer to the GAC members of WT5 on this point. I suggest that it would be more appropriate to say that 'applicants should apply to the GAC member concerned….' It is not necessary to presume on a GAC consensus in such cases. 4. The “Bright Line” rule (p. 75): I do not support this proposal. ICANN and the Community have no grounds for determining which geo-names are 'explicitly and expressly' (sic) protected, and which are not. I think it would depend very much on who you ask! Would ICANN's outreach include going round the world telling folk that the names of the places where they live are not protected? In other respects I shall post any additional comments to the Public Consultation. Best regards Christopher Wilkinson PS: I shall miss tomorrow's call, travelling. With apologies. El 8 de noviembre de 2018 a las 20:09 Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> escribió: Dear Work Track 5 members, Thanks to all who have submitted comments about the draft Initial Report on the mailing list and those who were able to join the call yesterday to go through some of the comments received that may require further discussion. Please find attached a revised draft of the report incorporating feedback received on the call. As a reminder, the target date for publishing the Initial Report is 20 November. In view of this timeline, the Work Track leadership team kindly requests that members submit any final feedback on the Initial Report no later than Friday 16 November. You can either insert comments in a copy of the attached document and send to the WT5 mailing list or send your comments in the body of an email to the WT5 list, identifying the page and line number of the text you are referencing. Below you will find some of the questions/concerns raised in comments by members that still may need additional input. The leadership team is sending these on the mailing list to make sure that all members have a chance to provide feedback, even if they were not able to join the call. · On page 17 (recommendations section of the report) two WT members commented that they felt it was premature to include any preliminary recommendation in the Initial Report on the topic of non-capital city names. Do you support removing preliminary recommendation 11 on treatment of non-capital city names? Or do you favor leaving the recommendation in the report, noting that it can be changed for the Final Report based on community input and further discussion in the Work Track? Regardless of whether the recommendation is kept or removed, there are two questions for community input on this topic (e10 and e11) included in the Initial Report, so the group can expect additional community feedback through public comment to support further deliberations. · On page 40 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Once a gTLD is registered with an intended use that is geographic in nature, all other variations and translations of this term are unconditionally available for registration.” Another Work Track member requested clarification on the meaning of “unconditionally available” and also requested clarification about which entities might be able to apply for these variations and translations under the proposal. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification? · On page 41 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Applicants for geographic names must apply to the GAC to receive permission to submit an application for the string.” Another Work Track member requested clarification about the scope and meaning of this proposal, including how it would interact with other requirements. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification? · On page 76 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Apply a "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected. No objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration.” Other Work Track members raised concern that the term “bright line” rule may not be widely used and understood, and further requested clarification on the scope of this rule and the basis for protection. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification? Note that Work Track members are welcome to comment on any other parts of the draft in addition to the items listed above. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 _______________________________________________ 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
In answer to the Four Questions: 1. We now have two participants objecting to Rec. 11 because it doesn’t go far enough (i.e., it doesn’t put non-geographic uses under the rule of support/non-objection letters) and one participant objecting because it goes too far (i.e., no uses should be put under the rule of support/non-objection letters). I support the recommendation as it stands and believe it should remain. However, if I had to choose one of the two opposing positions above, I would choose the “it goes too far” position. It’s hard to know which (if any) of the three positions have the most support in the Working Group. If none have sufficient support, perhaps it should be deleted. Another possibility is to lay out these 3 options for comment (status quo, removal of the intended use limitation, or removal in its entirety). 2. I’m not sure who brought this up, but I do recall discussing it. I support this concept. We have been told that the reason to subject geographic terms to a support/non-objection requirement (or to reserve them outright) is one of preservation: It preserves these options so that someday a public authority or the relevant citizenry (or perhaps, a “supported” private, for-profit company) can eventually apply for and operate a gTLD that matches that geographic term. Then the people, businesses and public authorities will be able to register and use domain names in that gTLD. However, once any one of the potential options is registered as a gTLD, this reason simply evaporates. The place has its gTLD. There’s no longer any need to reserve all these variations and translations. “Unconditionally available” seems self-explanatory — any entity or person can apply for these variations and translations, no strings attached. (Conceivably, it could still be subject to objection procedures later in the process, but we haven’t really discussed that (or objections, generally). 3. I’m not entirely clear what the intent of this is. Is it to avoid GAC Early Warnings? Or is it to cast the GAC as a Clearinghouse for support/non-objection letters? Or is to create a second level of permissions needed for some or all geographic terms? Since the intent is unclear and the authority for this “permission” is unclear, I would recommend deleting it. 4. A “bright-line” rule is one “providing an unambiguous criterion or guideline” according to Merriam-Webster. It’s a fairly common term in the US, particularly in law, legislation and regulation. The idea is to have a distinction that is clear and unambiguous; you are on one side of the line or the other. But the exact word choice is unimportant. The term “bright-line” could be replaced by unambiguous, or simply deleted entirely, with no significant loss in meaning. As to substance — we have been looking for rules that would limit or eliminate disputes, and for ways to make the application process more predictable. This would seem to accomplish both objectives. I believe we’ve heard mention of the opposite extreme — that objection or non-support should apply to every term that has a geographic meaning. Perhaps both of these extremes are “bonkers.” But at least this proposal answers the question “What happens to geographic terms that are not expressly protected under the AGB?” I don’t really think it’s “bonkers” — this would mean that the AGB defines the entire universe of geographic privileges, protections, etc., and that there are no other processes by which a claimed geo-based privilege or protection could be asserted. I support this proposal. This in many ways would be a more manageable regime, with a more defined set of options. As a matter of fact, when it comes to “permissions” this essentially states the current rule. When it comes to objections, this may go further than the current rule, but it does eliminate the possibility that every term that has a geographic meaning is potentially open to objection, which tends to have a chilling effect. In short it creates a recognizable boundary between terms with geographic meaning that are subject to a third party process, and those that are not. If governments seek (or believe they have) the power to object or to require permission for geographic terms that are not protected by the AGB, there should be a much greater definition of what these powers are, how they are applied, what their limits are, etc. The current situation goes against predictability, against eliminating disputes, and against freedom of speech. As it stands now, every applicant can be targeted by Big Brother, and they won’t know how, when, or why. That seems pretty “bonkers.” Best regards, Greg On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 12:35 PM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Hi all I broadly support Christopher‘s points. regards from the IGF in Paris Jorge
________________________________
Von: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Datum: 13. November 2018 um 18:34:20 MEZ Bis: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Initial Report next steps and deadline for input - Friday 16 November
Hi,
I want to second Christopher here:
The “Bright Line” rule (p. 75): I do not support this proposal.
I also do not support the “bright line” rule.
The rule does LITERALLY make no sense at all. Why would we eliminate the opportunity to object? On what basis? That’s entirely bonkers – and the GAC should keep an eye on this one: this is the attempt to silence countries on both; the Governmental and the civil society level. No. Just: NO! The right to object is a fundamental civil liberty right and there can’t be ANY policy limiting it in ANY way. This is how dictatorships silence opposition. Not at ICANN.
Thanks,
Alexander.berlin
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 7:18 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Initial Report next steps and deadline for input - Friday 16 November
Dear Emily Barabas and WT5 members :
Thankyou for the message of 8 November. I have a few comments on the four questions posed :
1. Recommendation 11: I do not support deleting the recommendation. However, I request that it be amended to remove the distinction between geo-use and non-geo-use thus requiring prior non-objection for all non-capital city names.
2. 'unconditional availability' language: I do not support this proposal. (Actually I have no recollection of it having been discussed by the WT):
(a) I expect that the ICANN community will discover that in multilingual countries, there is usually no formal hierarchy of language versions of the same geo-name. Thus all versions of a name – at least in official and local languages and scripts – would have to be treated equally. There is likely to be no basis in local law or practice for awarding any priority to any one language version of a particular name.
(b) There is scope for 'gaming' the proposal. I leave that to your imaginations!
This proposal is not a good idea.
3. '…applicants must apply to the GAC': I would defer to the GAC members of WT5 on this point. I suggest that it would be more appropriate to say that 'applicants should apply to the GAC member concerned….' It is not necessary to presume on a GAC consensus in such cases.
4. The “Bright Line” rule (p. 75): I do not support this proposal. ICANN and the Community have no grounds for determining which geo-names are 'explicitly and expressly' (sic) protected, and which are not. I think it would depend very much on who you ask! Would ICANN's outreach include going round the world telling folk that the names of the places where they live are not protected?
In other respects I shall post any additional comments to the Public Consultation.
Best regards
Christopher Wilkinson
PS: I shall miss tomorrow's call, travelling. With apologies.
El 8 de noviembre de 2018 a las 20:09 Emily Barabas < emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> escribió:
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Thanks to all who have submitted comments about the draft Initial Report on the mailing list and those who were able to join the call yesterday to go through some of the comments received that may require further discussion. Please find attached a revised draft of the report incorporating feedback received on the call. As a reminder, the target date for publishing the Initial Report is 20 November. In view of this timeline, the Work Track leadership team kindly requests that members submit any final feedback on the Initial Report no later than Friday 16 November. You can either insert comments in a copy of the attached document and send to the WT5 mailing list or send your comments in the body of an email to the WT5 list, identifying the page and line number of the text you are referencing.
Below you will find some of the questions/concerns raised in comments by members that still may need additional input. The leadership team is sending these on the mailing list to make sure that all members have a chance to provide feedback, even if they were not able to join the call. · On page 17 (recommendations section of the report) two WT members commented that they felt it was premature to include any preliminary recommendation in the Initial Report on the topic of non-capital city names. Do you support removing preliminary recommendation 11 on treatment of non-capital city names? Or do you favor leaving the recommendation in the report, noting that it can be changed for the Final Report based on community input and further discussion in the Work Track? Regardless of whether the recommendation is kept or removed, there are two questions for community input on this topic (e10 and e11) included in the Initial Report, so the group can expect additional community feedback through public comment to support further deliberations. · On page 40 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Once a gTLD is registered with an intended use that is geographic in nature, all other variations and translations of this term are unconditionally available for registration.” Another Work Track member requested clarification on the meaning of “unconditionally available” and also requested clarification about which entities might be able to apply for these variations and translations under the proposal. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification? · On page 41 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Applicants for geographic names must apply to the GAC to receive permission to submit an application for the string.” Another Work Track member requested clarification about the scope and meaning of this proposal, including how it would interact with other requirements. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification? · On page 76 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Apply a "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected. No objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration.” Other Work Track members raised concern that the term “bright line” rule may not be widely used and understood, and further requested clarification on the scope of this rule and the basis for protection. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification?
Note that Work Track members are welcome to comment on any other parts of the draft in addition to the items listed above.
Kind regards,
Emily
Emily Barabas | Policy Manager
ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Greg, If there was just ONE applicant for “.shanghai”. And if from their application one couldn’t derive that “they intend to use this gTLD PRIMARELY for issues related to the city”. Then you are telling us that neither the city of Shanghai nor constituents from the city can object? Because “bright line”? Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Somebody applies for “.shanghai”; simply AVOIDS talking about the city altogether; and that’s it: he is through? No “curative rights” anymore? Maybe I misinterpret your proposal? Alexander.berlin From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 10:50 PM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Cc: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Initial Report next steps and deadline for input - Friday 16 November In answer to the Four Questions: 1. We now have two participants objecting to Rec. 11 because it doesn’t go far enough (i.e., it doesn’t put non-geographic uses under the rule of support/non-objection letters) and one participant objecting because it goes too far (i.e., no uses should be put under the rule of support/non-objection letters). I support the recommendation as it stands and believe it should remain. However, if I had to choose one of the two opposing positions above, I would choose the “it goes too far” position. It’s hard to know which (if any) of the three positions have the most support in the Working Group. If none have sufficient support, perhaps it should be deleted. Another possibility is to lay out these 3 options for comment (status quo, removal of the intended use limitation, or removal in its entirety). 2. I’m not sure who brought this up, but I do recall discussing it. I support this concept. We have been told that the reason to subject geographic terms to a support/non-objection requirement (or to reserve them outright) is one of preservation: It preserves these options so that someday a public authority or the relevant citizenry (or perhaps, a “supported” private, for-profit company) can eventually apply for and operate a gTLD that matches that geographic term. Then the people, businesses and public authorities will be able to register and use domain names in that gTLD. However, once any one of the potential options is registered as a gTLD, this reason simply evaporates. The place has its gTLD. There’s no longer any need to reserve all these variations and translations. “Unconditionally available” seems self-explanatory — any entity or person can apply for these variations and translations, no strings attached. (Conceivably, it could still be subject to objection procedures later in the process, but we haven’t really discussed that (or objections, generally). 3. I’m not entirely clear what the intent of this is. Is it to avoid GAC Early Warnings? Or is it to cast the GAC as a Clearinghouse for support/non-objection letters? Or is to create a second level of permissions needed for some or all geographic terms? Since the intent is unclear and the authority for this “permission” is unclear, I would recommend deleting it. 4. A “bright-line” rule is one “providing an unambiguous criterion or guideline” according to Merriam-Webster. It’s a fairly common term in the US, particularly in law, legislation and regulation. The idea is to have a distinction that is clear and unambiguous; you are on one side of the line or the other. But the exact word choice is unimportant. The term “bright-line” could be replaced by unambiguous, or simply deleted entirely, with no significant loss in meaning. As to substance — we have been looking for rules that would limit or eliminate disputes, and for ways to make the application process more predictable. This would seem to accomplish both objectives. I believe we’ve heard mention of the opposite extreme — that objection or non-support should apply to every term that has a geographic meaning. Perhaps both of these extremes are “bonkers.” But at least this proposal answers the question “What happens to geographic terms that are not expressly protected under the AGB?” I don’t really think it’s “bonkers” — this would mean that the AGB defines the entire universe of geographic privileges, protections, etc., and that there are no other processes by which a claimed geo-based privilege or protection could be asserted. I support this proposal. This in many ways would be a more manageable regime, with a more defined set of options. As a matter of fact, when it comes to “permissions” this essentially states the current rule. When it comes to objections, this may go further than the current rule, but it does eliminate the possibility that every term that has a geographic meaning is potentially open to objection, which tends to have a chilling effect. In short it creates a recognizable boundary between terms with geographic meaning that are subject to a third party process, and those that are not. If governments seek (or believe they have) the power to object or to require permission for geographic terms that are not protected by the AGB, there should be a much greater definition of what these powers are, how they are applied, what their limits are, etc. The current situation goes against predictability, against eliminating disputes, and against freedom of speech. As it stands now, every applicant can be targeted by Big Brother, and they won’t know how, when, or why. That seems pretty “bonkers.” Best regards, Greg On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 12:35 PM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > wrote: Hi all I broadly support Christopher‘s points. regards from the IGF in Paris Jorge ________________________________ Von: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > Datum: 13. November 2018 um 18:34:20 MEZ Bis: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Initial Report next steps and deadline for input - Friday 16 November Hi, I want to second Christopher here: The “Bright Line” rule (p. 75): I do not support this proposal. I also do not support the “bright line” rule. The rule does LITERALLY make no sense at all. Why would we eliminate the opportunity to object? On what basis? That’s entirely bonkers – and the GAC should keep an eye on this one: this is the attempt to silence countries on both; the Governmental and the civil society level. No. Just: NO! The right to object is a fundamental civil liberty right and there can’t be ANY policy limiting it in ANY way. This is how dictatorships silence opposition. Not at ICANN. Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 7:18 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> >; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Initial Report next steps and deadline for input - Friday 16 November Dear Emily Barabas and WT5 members : Thankyou for the message of 8 November. I have a few comments on the four questions posed : 1. Recommendation 11: I do not support deleting the recommendation. However, I request that it be amended to remove the distinction between geo-use and non-geo-use thus requiring prior non-objection for all non-capital city names. 2. 'unconditional availability' language: I do not support this proposal. (Actually I have no recollection of it having been discussed by the WT): (a) I expect that the ICANN community will discover that in multilingual countries, there is usually no formal hierarchy of language versions of the same geo-name. Thus all versions of a name – at least in official and local languages and scripts – would have to be treated equally. There is likely to be no basis in local law or practice for awarding any priority to any one language version of a particular name. (b) There is scope for 'gaming' the proposal. I leave that to your imaginations! This proposal is not a good idea. 3. '…applicants must apply to the GAC': I would defer to the GAC members of WT5 on this point. I suggest that it would be more appropriate to say that 'applicants should apply to the GAC member concerned….' It is not necessary to presume on a GAC consensus in such cases. 4. The “Bright Line” rule (p. 75): I do not support this proposal. ICANN and the Community have no grounds for determining which geo-names are 'explicitly and expressly' (sic) protected, and which are not. I think it would depend very much on who you ask! Would ICANN's outreach include going round the world telling folk that the names of the places where they live are not protected? In other respects I shall post any additional comments to the Public Consultation. Best regards Christopher Wilkinson PS: I shall miss tomorrow's call, travelling. With apologies. El 8 de noviembre de 2018 a las 20:09 Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> >> escribió: Dear Work Track 5 members, Thanks to all who have submitted comments about the draft Initial Report on the mailing list and those who were able to join the call yesterday to go through some of the comments received that may require further discussion. Please find attached a revised draft of the report incorporating feedback received on the call. As a reminder, the target date for publishing the Initial Report is 20 November. In view of this timeline, the Work Track leadership team kindly requests that members submit any final feedback on the Initial Report no later than Friday 16 November. You can either insert comments in a copy of the attached document and send to the WT5 mailing list or send your comments in the body of an email to the WT5 list, identifying the page and line number of the text you are referencing. Below you will find some of the questions/concerns raised in comments by members that still may need additional input. The leadership team is sending these on the mailing list to make sure that all members have a chance to provide feedback, even if they were not able to join the call. · On page 17 (recommendations section of the report) two WT members commented that they felt it was premature to include any preliminary recommendation in the Initial Report on the topic of non-capital city names. Do you support removing preliminary recommendation 11 on treatment of non-capital city names? Or do you favor leaving the recommendation in the report, noting that it can be changed for the Final Report based on community input and further discussion in the Work Track? Regardless of whether the recommendation is kept or removed, there are two questions for community input on this topic (e10 and e11) included in the Initial Report, so the group can expect additional community feedback through public comment to support further deliberations. · On page 40 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Once a gTLD is registered with an intended use that is geographic in nature, all other variations and translations of this term are unconditionally available for registration.” Another Work Track member requested clarification on the meaning of “unconditionally available” and also requested clarification about which entities might be able to apply for these variations and translations under the proposal. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification? · On page 41 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Applicants for geographic names must apply to the GAC to receive permission to submit an application for the string.” Another Work Track member requested clarification about the scope and meaning of this proposal, including how it would interact with other requirements. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification? · On page 76 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Apply a "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected. No objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration.” Other Work Track members raised concern that the term “bright line” rule may not be widely used and understood, and further requested clarification on the scope of this rule and the basis for protection. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification? Note that Work Track members are welcome to comment on any other parts of the draft in addition to the items listed above. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> > | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Alexander, Yes, I think you are misinterpreting my proposal, and misunderstanding and mis-presenting it as well. First, the proposal relates only to strings that are not expressly protected as geographic terms in the AGB. If "Shanghai" is a non-capital city name (which it is), and we have a provision that protects "non-capital city names," then this proposal *would not apply* to an application for .shanghai. The point of the proposal is to improve clarity and predictability. There would be two broad categories -- strings that fall into the categories recognized *by the AGB* as "geographic terms," and strings that do not fall into those categories. Applications that fell into the first set (categories and lists of geographic terms recognized by the AGB) could be objected to on a geographic basis. Applications that fell outside that first set would not be subject to objection -- logically, because there would be no basis for that objection. Is this extreme (or "brutal" as you claim elsewhere)? Perhaps, but no more brutal and extreme than suggestions that massive numbers of strings with geographic connotations should essentially be reserved, available only if a government or public authority grants permission. To some extent, this is a "stalking horse," intended to represent one end of the spectrum, with the other end of the spectrum being proposals that we should protect huge piles of strings, ether by withholding them (subject to permission or fully reserved) or by allowing objections merely because they are terms with geographic meanings. This could easily be tempered somewhat by saying that there would be no objection solely on the basis that the term has a geographic meaning, but that objections could go forward on other grounds. Since neitther the AGB or this WG has recognized a clear ground to object solely on that basis, this would be an easy change to make and I would be happy to see that change made. Greg P.S. I'll deal elsewhere with your oft-repeated Shanghai hypothetical, which clearly involves sneaky, or even fraudulent, behavior. That is a "corner case" we can deal with specifically. On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 6:35 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Greg,
If there was just ONE applicant for “.shanghai”. And if from their application one couldn’t derive that “they intend to use this gTLD PRIMARELY for issues related to the city”. Then you are telling us that neither the city of Shanghai nor constituents from the city can object? Because “bright line”? Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Somebody applies for “.shanghai”; simply AVOIDS talking about the city altogether; and that’s it: he is through? No “curative rights” anymore?
Maybe I misinterpret your proposal?
Alexander.berlin
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, November 13, 2018 10:50 PM *To:* Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch *Cc:* alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Initial Report next steps and deadline for input - Friday 16 November
In answer to the Four Questions:
1. We now have two participants objecting to Rec. 11 because it doesn’t go far enough (i.e., it doesn’t put non-geographic uses under the rule of support/non-objection letters) and one participant objecting because it goes too far (i.e., no uses should be put under the rule of support/non-objection letters).
I support the recommendation as it stands and believe it should remain. However, if I had to choose one of the two opposing positions above, I would choose the “it goes too far” position. It’s hard to know which (if any) of the three positions have the most support in the Working Group. If none have sufficient support, perhaps it should be deleted. Another possibility is to lay out these 3 options for comment (status quo, removal of the intended use limitation, or removal in its entirety).
2. I’m not sure who brought this up, but I do recall discussing it. I support this concept. We have been told that the reason to subject geographic terms to a support/non-objection requirement (or to reserve them outright) is one of preservation: It preserves these options so that someday a public authority or the relevant citizenry (or perhaps, a “supported” private, for-profit company) can eventually apply for and operate a gTLD that matches that geographic term. Then the people, businesses and public authorities will be able to register and use domain names in that gTLD. However, once any one of the potential options is registered as a gTLD, this reason simply evaporates. The place has its gTLD. There’s no longer any need to reserve all these variations and translations. “Unconditionally available” seems self-explanatory — any entity or person can apply for these variations and translations, no strings attached. (Conceivably, it could still be subject to objection procedures later in the process, but we haven’t really discussed that (or objections, generally).
3. I’m not entirely clear what the intent of this is. Is it to avoid GAC Early Warnings? Or is it to cast the GAC as a Clearinghouse for support/non-objection letters? Or is to create a second level of permissions needed for some or all geographic terms? Since the intent is unclear and the authority for this “permission” is unclear, I would recommend deleting it.
4. A “bright-line” rule is one “providing an unambiguous criterion or guideline” according to Merriam-Webster. It’s a fairly common term in the US, particularly in law, legislation and regulation. The idea is to have a distinction that is clear and unambiguous; you are on one side of the line or the other. But the exact word choice is unimportant. The term “bright-line” could be replaced by unambiguous, or simply deleted entirely, with no significant loss in meaning.
As to substance — we have been looking for rules that would limit or eliminate disputes, and for ways to make the application process more predictable. This would seem to accomplish both objectives. I believe we’ve heard mention of the opposite extreme — that objection or non-support should apply to every term that has a geographic meaning. Perhaps both of these extremes are “bonkers.”
But at least this proposal answers the question “What happens to geographic terms that are not expressly protected under the AGB?” I don’t really think it’s “bonkers” — this would mean that the AGB defines the entire universe of geographic privileges, protections, etc., and that there are no other processes by which a claimed geo-based privilege or protection could be asserted.
I support this proposal. This in many ways would be a more manageable regime, with a more defined set of options. As a matter of fact, when it comes to “permissions” this essentially states the current rule. When it comes to objections, this may go further than the current rule, but it does eliminate the possibility that every term that has a geographic meaning is potentially open to objection, which tends to have a chilling effect. In short it creates a recognizable boundary between terms with geographic meaning that are subject to a third party process, and those that are not.
If governments seek (or believe they have) the power to object or to require permission for geographic terms that are not protected by the AGB, there should be a much greater definition of what these powers are, how they are applied, what their limits are, etc. The current situation goes against predictability, against eliminating disputes, and against freedom of speech. As it stands now, every applicant can be targeted by Big Brother, and they won’t know how, when, or why. That seems pretty “bonkers.”
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 12:35 PM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Hi all I broadly support Christopher‘s points. regards from the IGF in Paris Jorge
________________________________
Von: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Datum: 13. November 2018 um 18:34:20 MEZ Bis: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Initial Report next steps and deadline for input - Friday 16 November
Hi,
I want to second Christopher here:
The “Bright Line” rule (p. 75): I do not support this proposal.
I also do not support the “bright line” rule.
The rule does LITERALLY make no sense at all. Why would we eliminate the opportunity to object? On what basis? That’s entirely bonkers – and the GAC should keep an eye on this one: this is the attempt to silence countries on both; the Governmental and the civil society level. No. Just: NO! The right to object is a fundamental civil liberty right and there can’t be ANY policy limiting it in ANY way. This is how dictatorships silence opposition. Not at ICANN.
Thanks,
Alexander.berlin
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 7:18 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Initial Report next steps and deadline for input - Friday 16 November
Dear Emily Barabas and WT5 members :
Thankyou for the message of 8 November. I have a few comments on the four questions posed :
1. Recommendation 11: I do not support deleting the recommendation. However, I request that it be amended to remove the distinction between geo-use and non-geo-use thus requiring prior non-objection for all non-capital city names.
2. 'unconditional availability' language: I do not support this proposal. (Actually I have no recollection of it having been discussed by the WT):
(a) I expect that the ICANN community will discover that in multilingual countries, there is usually no formal hierarchy of language versions of the same geo-name. Thus all versions of a name – at least in official and local languages and scripts – would have to be treated equally. There is likely to be no basis in local law or practice for awarding any priority to any one language version of a particular name.
(b) There is scope for 'gaming' the proposal. I leave that to your imaginations!
This proposal is not a good idea.
3. '…applicants must apply to the GAC': I would defer to the GAC members of WT5 on this point. I suggest that it would be more appropriate to say that 'applicants should apply to the GAC member concerned….' It is not necessary to presume on a GAC consensus in such cases.
4. The “Bright Line” rule (p. 75): I do not support this proposal. ICANN and the Community have no grounds for determining which geo-names are 'explicitly and expressly' (sic) protected, and which are not. I think it would depend very much on who you ask! Would ICANN's outreach include going round the world telling folk that the names of the places where they live are not protected?
In other respects I shall post any additional comments to the Public Consultation.
Best regards
Christopher Wilkinson
PS: I shall miss tomorrow's call, travelling. With apologies.
El 8 de noviembre de 2018 a las 20:09 Emily Barabas < emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> escribió:
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Thanks to all who have submitted comments about the draft Initial Report on the mailing list and those who were able to join the call yesterday to go through some of the comments received that may require further discussion. Please find attached a revised draft of the report incorporating feedback received on the call. As a reminder, the target date for publishing the Initial Report is 20 November. In view of this timeline, the Work Track leadership team kindly requests that members submit any final feedback on the Initial Report no later than Friday 16 November. You can either insert comments in a copy of the attached document and send to the WT5 mailing list or send your comments in the body of an email to the WT5 list, identifying the page and line number of the text you are referencing.
Below you will find some of the questions/concerns raised in comments by members that still may need additional input. The leadership team is sending these on the mailing list to make sure that all members have a chance to provide feedback, even if they were not able to join the call. · On page 17 (recommendations section of the report) two WT members commented that they felt it was premature to include any preliminary recommendation in the Initial Report on the topic of non-capital city names. Do you support removing preliminary recommendation 11 on treatment of non-capital city names? Or do you favor leaving the recommendation in the report, noting that it can be changed for the Final Report based on community input and further discussion in the Work Track? Regardless of whether the recommendation is kept or removed, there are two questions for community input on this topic (e10 and e11) included in the Initial Report, so the group can expect additional community feedback through public comment to support further deliberations. · On page 40 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Once a gTLD is registered with an intended use that is geographic in nature, all other variations and translations of this term are unconditionally available for registration.” Another Work Track member requested clarification on the meaning of “unconditionally available” and also requested clarification about which entities might be able to apply for these variations and translations under the proposal. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification? · On page 41 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Applicants for geographic names must apply to the GAC to receive permission to submit an application for the string.” Another Work Track member requested clarification about the scope and meaning of this proposal, including how it would interact with other requirements. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification? · On page 76 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Apply a "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected. No objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration.” Other Work Track members raised concern that the term “bright line” rule may not be widely used and understood, and further requested clarification on the scope of this rule and the basis for protection. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification?
Note that Work Track members are welcome to comment on any other parts of the draft in addition to the items listed above.
Kind regards,
Emily
Emily Barabas | Policy Manager
ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear Greg, I hear what you say regarding the example of “non-capital city names” (quote of your email): If "Shanghai" is a non-capital city name (which it is), and we have a provision that protects "non-capital city names," then this proposal would not apply to an application for .shanghai. But then we would have to clarify your suggested proposal (bright line rule)! Right now “.shanghai” would ONLY be subject to geo name protections if it were applied for as city-name and/or the applicant would make it clear that they intend to use the gTLD for purposes associated with the city! In the WT5 draft your proposal is crafted the following way: Proposal: Apply a clear and unambiguous rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected. No objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration So the current proposal is tied to the “status of protection” – how do you think I have “mis-presented” that? “.shanghai” might be protected, or might NOT be protected; that’s the HIUGE loophole in our flawed 2012 policy. The version that you are proposing today is very different, as in that it is already sufficient to be merely SUBJECTED to the geo names review to NOT trigger the bright line rule! The Proposal would have to be REDRAFTED to fit the version that you are suggesting in your today’s email, maybe: Proposal: Apply a clear and unambiguous rule that any geographic term that is not subject to the geographic names review is unprotected. No objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration Again; the main difference being: “protected by” vs “subject to” the geographic names review. Two entirely different shoes! So I do not think I have “mis-presented” your proposal at all. Would you agree that my adapted version of your proposal would match the version of “bright line rule” that you outlined in your today’s email? But thanks for the clarification: the “bright line rule” looks already much less “murky” and “lethal” this way….. Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 12:24 AM To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Initial Report next steps and deadline for input - Friday 16 November Alexander, Yes, I think you are misinterpreting my proposal, and misunderstanding and mis-presenting it as well. First, the proposal relates only to strings that are not expressly protected as geographic terms in the AGB. If "Shanghai" is a non-capital city name (which it is), and we have a provision that protects "non-capital city names," then this proposal would not apply to an application for .shanghai. The point of the proposal is to improve clarity and predictability. There would be two broad categories -- strings that fall into the categories recognized by the AGB as "geographic terms," and strings that do not fall into those categories. Applications that fell into the first set (categories and lists of geographic terms recognized by the AGB) could be objected to on a geographic basis. Applications that fell outside that first set would not be subject to objection -- logically, because there would be no basis for that objection. Is this extreme (or "brutal" as you claim elsewhere)? Perhaps, but no more brutal and extreme than suggestions that massive numbers of strings with geographic connotations should essentially be reserved, available only if a government or public authority grants permission. To some extent, this is a "stalking horse," intended to represent one end of the spectrum, with the other end of the spectrum being proposals that we should protect huge piles of strings, ether by withholding them (subject to permission or fully reserved) or by allowing objections merely because they are terms with geographic meanings. This could easily be tempered somewhat by saying that there would be no objection solely on the basis that the term has a geographic meaning, but that objections could go forward on other grounds. Since neitther the AGB or this WG has recognized a clear ground to object solely on that basis, this would be an easy change to make and I would be happy to see that change made. Greg P.S. I'll deal elsewhere with your oft-repeated Shanghai hypothetical, which clearly involves sneaky, or even fraudulent, behavior. That is a "corner case" we can deal with specifically. On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 6:35 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Greg, If there was just ONE applicant for “.shanghai”. And if from their application one couldn’t derive that “they intend to use this gTLD PRIMARELY for issues related to the city”. Then you are telling us that neither the city of Shanghai nor constituents from the city can object? Because “bright line”? Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Somebody applies for “.shanghai”; simply AVOIDS talking about the city altogether; and that’s it: he is through? No “curative rights” anymore? Maybe I misinterpret your proposal? Alexander.berlin From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> ] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 10:50 PM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> ; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Initial Report next steps and deadline for input - Friday 16 November In answer to the Four Questions: 1. We now have two participants objecting to Rec. 11 because it doesn’t go far enough (i.e., it doesn’t put non-geographic uses under the rule of support/non-objection letters) and one participant objecting because it goes too far (i.e., no uses should be put under the rule of support/non-objection letters). I support the recommendation as it stands and believe it should remain. However, if I had to choose one of the two opposing positions above, I would choose the “it goes too far” position. It’s hard to know which (if any) of the three positions have the most support in the Working Group. If none have sufficient support, perhaps it should be deleted. Another possibility is to lay out these 3 options for comment (status quo, removal of the intended use limitation, or removal in its entirety). 2. I’m not sure who brought this up, but I do recall discussing it. I support this concept. We have been told that the reason to subject geographic terms to a support/non-objection requirement (or to reserve them outright) is one of preservation: It preserves these options so that someday a public authority or the relevant citizenry (or perhaps, a “supported” private, for-profit company) can eventually apply for and operate a gTLD that matches that geographic term. Then the people, businesses and public authorities will be able to register and use domain names in that gTLD. However, once any one of the potential options is registered as a gTLD, this reason simply evaporates. The place has its gTLD. There’s no longer any need to reserve all these variations and translations. “Unconditionally available” seems self-explanatory — any entity or person can apply for these variations and translations, no strings attached. (Conceivably, it could still be subject to objection procedures later in the process, but we haven’t really discussed that (or objections, generally). 3. I’m not entirely clear what the intent of this is. Is it to avoid GAC Early Warnings? Or is it to cast the GAC as a Clearinghouse for support/non-objection letters? Or is to create a second level of permissions needed for some or all geographic terms? Since the intent is unclear and the authority for this “permission” is unclear, I would recommend deleting it. 4. A “bright-line” rule is one “providing an unambiguous criterion or guideline” according to Merriam-Webster. It’s a fairly common term in the US, particularly in law, legislation and regulation. The idea is to have a distinction that is clear and unambiguous; you are on one side of the line or the other. But the exact word choice is unimportant. The term “bright-line” could be replaced by unambiguous, or simply deleted entirely, with no significant loss in meaning. As to substance — we have been looking for rules that would limit or eliminate disputes, and for ways to make the application process more predictable. This would seem to accomplish both objectives. I believe we’ve heard mention of the opposite extreme — that objection or non-support should apply to every term that has a geographic meaning. Perhaps both of these extremes are “bonkers.” But at least this proposal answers the question “What happens to geographic terms that are not expressly protected under the AGB?” I don’t really think it’s “bonkers” — this would mean that the AGB defines the entire universe of geographic privileges, protections, etc., and that there are no other processes by which a claimed geo-based privilege or protection could be asserted. I support this proposal. This in many ways would be a more manageable regime, with a more defined set of options. As a matter of fact, when it comes to “permissions” this essentially states the current rule. When it comes to objections, this may go further than the current rule, but it does eliminate the possibility that every term that has a geographic meaning is potentially open to objection, which tends to have a chilling effect. In short it creates a recognizable boundary between terms with geographic meaning that are subject to a third party process, and those that are not. If governments seek (or believe they have) the power to object or to require permission for geographic terms that are not protected by the AGB, there should be a much greater definition of what these powers are, how they are applied, what their limits are, etc. The current situation goes against predictability, against eliminating disputes, and against freedom of speech. As it stands now, every applicant can be targeted by Big Brother, and they won’t know how, when, or why. That seems pretty “bonkers.” Best regards, Greg On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 12:35 PM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > wrote: Hi all I broadly support Christopher‘s points. regards from the IGF in Paris Jorge ________________________________ Von: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > Datum: 13. November 2018 um 18:34:20 MEZ Bis: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Initial Report next steps and deadline for input - Friday 16 November Hi, I want to second Christopher here: The “Bright Line” rule (p. 75): I do not support this proposal. I also do not support the “bright line” rule. The rule does LITERALLY make no sense at all. Why would we eliminate the opportunity to object? On what basis? That’s entirely bonkers – and the GAC should keep an eye on this one: this is the attempt to silence countries on both; the Governmental and the civil society level. No. Just: NO! The right to object is a fundamental civil liberty right and there can’t be ANY policy limiting it in ANY way. This is how dictatorships silence opposition. Not at ICANN. Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 7:18 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> >; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Initial Report next steps and deadline for input - Friday 16 November Dear Emily Barabas and WT5 members : Thankyou for the message of 8 November. I have a few comments on the four questions posed : 1. Recommendation 11: I do not support deleting the recommendation. However, I request that it be amended to remove the distinction between geo-use and non-geo-use thus requiring prior non-objection for all non-capital city names. 2. 'unconditional availability' language: I do not support this proposal. (Actually I have no recollection of it having been discussed by the WT): (a) I expect that the ICANN community will discover that in multilingual countries, there is usually no formal hierarchy of language versions of the same geo-name. Thus all versions of a name – at least in official and local languages and scripts – would have to be treated equally. There is likely to be no basis in local law or practice for awarding any priority to any one language version of a particular name. (b) There is scope for 'gaming' the proposal. I leave that to your imaginations! This proposal is not a good idea. 3. '…applicants must apply to the GAC': I would defer to the GAC members of WT5 on this point. I suggest that it would be more appropriate to say that 'applicants should apply to the GAC member concerned….' It is not necessary to presume on a GAC consensus in such cases. 4. The “Bright Line” rule (p. 75): I do not support this proposal. ICANN and the Community have no grounds for determining which geo-names are 'explicitly and expressly' (sic) protected, and which are not. I think it would depend very much on who you ask! Would ICANN's outreach include going round the world telling folk that the names of the places where they live are not protected? In other respects I shall post any additional comments to the Public Consultation. Best regards Christopher Wilkinson PS: I shall miss tomorrow's call, travelling. With apologies. El 8 de noviembre de 2018 a las 20:09 Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> >> escribió: Dear Work Track 5 members, Thanks to all who have submitted comments about the draft Initial Report on the mailing list and those who were able to join the call yesterday to go through some of the comments received that may require further discussion. Please find attached a revised draft of the report incorporating feedback received on the call. As a reminder, the target date for publishing the Initial Report is 20 November. In view of this timeline, the Work Track leadership team kindly requests that members submit any final feedback on the Initial Report no later than Friday 16 November. You can either insert comments in a copy of the attached document and send to the WT5 mailing list or send your comments in the body of an email to the WT5 list, identifying the page and line number of the text you are referencing. Below you will find some of the questions/concerns raised in comments by members that still may need additional input. The leadership team is sending these on the mailing list to make sure that all members have a chance to provide feedback, even if they were not able to join the call. · On page 17 (recommendations section of the report) two WT members commented that they felt it was premature to include any preliminary recommendation in the Initial Report on the topic of non-capital city names. Do you support removing preliminary recommendation 11 on treatment of non-capital city names? Or do you favor leaving the recommendation in the report, noting that it can be changed for the Final Report based on community input and further discussion in the Work Track? Regardless of whether the recommendation is kept or removed, there are two questions for community input on this topic (e10 and e11) included in the Initial Report, so the group can expect additional community feedback through public comment to support further deliberations. · On page 40 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Once a gTLD is registered with an intended use that is geographic in nature, all other variations and translations of this term are unconditionally available for registration.” Another Work Track member requested clarification on the meaning of “unconditionally available” and also requested clarification about which entities might be able to apply for these variations and translations under the proposal. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification? · On page 41 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Applicants for geographic names must apply to the GAC to receive permission to submit an application for the string.” Another Work Track member requested clarification about the scope and meaning of this proposal, including how it would interact with other requirements. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification? · On page 76 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Apply a "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected. No objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration.” Other Work Track members raised concern that the term “bright line” rule may not be widely used and understood, and further requested clarification on the scope of this rule and the basis for protection. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification? Note that Work Track members are welcome to comment on any other parts of the draft in addition to the items listed above. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> > | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
participants (5)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Emily Barabas -
Greg Shatan -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson