Hi, The “formerly called bright line” rule proposal (page 79 of 117 in the WT5 Report PDF of Nov 27) states: 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 In my view non-capital city name based gTLD strings are ONLY “explicitly and expressly protected” by the “Geographic Names Review” if: “It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name ……” Quote 2.2.1.4.2 2.(a) of the 2012 AGB In other words: If an applicant DOESN’T make clear that he wants to use the string PRIMARELY “for purposes associated with the city name” – then in my mind per the current AGB provisions such string is NOT “explicitly and expressly protected” – hence the applicant does not need to provide city government support! In other words: The way the “bright line proposal” is formulated today would lead to a ban of “gTLD civil rights”: no objections allowed! But the author of the bright line rule asserted, that it is his intention that ALL non-capital city name based applications (whether or not geo-use intent is present) would NOT be subject to the bright line rule: Greg in his email from November 19 2018: 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. In this light (but only if Greg approves): My suggestion would be to change the bright line rule into: Proposal: Apply a clear and unambiguous rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly impacted by the geographic names review is unprotected. No objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration Obviously I am open to other ways to edit of Greg’s proposal. But the wording “explicitly and expressly protected” is pretty clear! It would EXCEMPT non-capital city name based gTLD applications if the applicants wouldn’t declare to PRIMARELY target the city. So a “.shanghai” being applied the exact same way as “.bike” could not be objected by the Shanghai Government or the Shanghai stakeholder group of local constituents. Do we really want that? Right now I am quoted on this with comment “A110R107” (page 79 of 117 – comments at the right): Alexander Schubert: Suggested altering the proposal to state “A brand or generic term based application that is NOT a city, subnational division, unesco region would simply pass the geographic names review WITHOUT any further investigation. So it would not be “impacted” by it. However a non-capital city name would be always impacted, as the panel had to start evaluating the application – trying to find out whether the applicant intends to use it “primarily for purposes associated with the city name”. That’s not my “suggested alteration” – but part of my EXPLAINATION why the bright line rule is harmful! Please change this into: Alexander Schubert: Suggested altering the proposal to state “Proposal: Apply a clear and unambiguous rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly impacted by the geographic names review is unprotected. No objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration.” He claims that the current version of the proposal would eliminate the right to object to non-capital city name based gTLD applications that do not require a letter of non-objection; making it impossible for vulnerable city communities to defend their gTLD namespace against gTLD squatting, extortion and abuse. Again: please do NOT alter Greg’s proposal without his consent. But please correct my “A110R107” comment. Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 12:42 PM To: emily.barabas@icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 28 November 2018 at 20:00 UTC Dear Emily Please include the following comments in the consideration: - Page 12: “Treatment of these strings was inconsistent.” --> this is just the opinion expressed (as far as I know) by one member. “inconsistent” is a value call. We could say that there were different treatments – whether that differentiation was inconsistent or not has not been agreed. - Page 42: the following heading/intro seems to reflect an agreed view, when it is only the view of “some”, hence it should read “Some of the issues problems and negative experiences that some Work Track members identified from the 2012 round include the following.” Best regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 < <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Emily Barabas Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. November 2018 20:52 An: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 28 November 2018 at 20:00 UTC Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call taking place tomorrow 28 November 2018 at 20:00 UTC for 90 mins. 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Initial Report – Outstanding Items 3. AOB - Additional information request – Geographic Names Panel Please find attached the latest version of the draft Initial Report. This version incorporates new feedback received in the last week. New comments are highlighted in either blue or yellow. For those highlighted in blue, the resolution was relatively straightforward and staff has proposed edits. Comments in yellow require additional input and will be discussed on the call tomorrow. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976