Dear Jorge, I agree with you. Best regards, Mzia From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 5:14 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [Ext] AW: Definition and Treatment of Geographic Names: 2007 Policy and 2012 AGB Dear Alexander Thanks for your Email! One important point you mention in passing is „depending of course on the legality in the relevant jurisdiction” – this is really key in many jurisdictions, as authorities are bound by the law, by due process, and have to decide and motivate their decisions accordingly. Best regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Alexander Schubert Gesendet: Mittwoch, 7. Februar 2018 14:03 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [Ext] AW: Definition and Treatment of Geographic Names: 2007 Policy and 2012 AGB Dear Jorge, I am in agreement with your general assessment that the 2012 AGB provision “letter of non-objection by relevant Government authority” worked well and creates benefits! Hence we should keep this mechanism! However I would like to elaborate on the distribution of “power” between applicant and government authority: You write: “the 2012 AGB requirement of a non-objection letter by the relevant public authorities worked well, as it created a good mix of incentives for applicants and relevant authorities to arrive at mutually accepted solutions for the delegation of the strings.” I would like to note that this is an interpretation – and in my eyes one that leaves a critical fact out of view: In reality the “relevant government authority” sits on an infinitive long lever of power – and can essentially dictate any and all conditions to the applicant (depending of course on the legality in the relevant jurisdiction). It’s not that applicants have ANY “power” over the authorities – but the other way around: Either the applicant meets ALL expectations of the authority – or there is no letter of non-objection. Your description makes it look like government authorities have merely a voice in the process – when in reality they have 100% unilateral control. So not only the 2012 AGB procedure requiring a letter of non-objection worked well – it also serves as a model for the potential release of previously banned strings (e.g. country names) – and would give 100% control to the relevant government authorities; not just merely providing them “a voice” in “arriving at a mutually accepted solution”. Thanks for your contribution; it was missing previously. Best regards, Alexander Schubert From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 1:16 PM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [Ext] AW: Definition and Treatment of Geographic Names: 2007 Policy and 2012 AGB Dear Jorge, Thank you for your input. Your comments have been added to Tab 2 of this document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FuPEq0y-cdSUQ1nvhWKhVnG8PLaC2RYXsCpQ.... Kind regards, Emily From: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Date: Wednesday 7 February 2018 at 11:41 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] AW: Definition and Treatment of Geographic Names: 2007 Policy and 2012 AGB Dear all, I’m afraid I will only be able to attend the first part of today’s call, so I would like to share some points on the question of the definition and treatment of geographic names: * Definitions: the definitions included in the 2012 AGB in general worked well. However, as said before, problems in the application of the AGB 2012 related to geonames as Top Level Domains have arisen in relation to those names with a geographic meaning/significance that were not covered under the 2012 AGB rules (we all know some examples that still are lingering today, such as “.amazon”). I would therefore suggest, for the time being, that we include in this definition discussion, the notion that there were names with geographic meaning not covered by the 2012 AGB definitions and rules, which according to a factual analysis have given rise to problems, and that therefore a debate would be warranted, in order to include them under the definitions in a manner to be agreed upon, establishing a framework for mutually agreed outcomes amongst all interested parties in such applications. * Treatment: according to the available data (for instance the data circulated prior to the webinar organized in April last year) the 2012 AGB requirement of a non-objection letter by the relevant public authorities worked well, as it created a good mix of incentives for applicants and relevant authorities to arrive at mutually accepted solutions for the delegation of the strings. @staff/co-leads: please kindly include these points in the record and/or relevant documents. Thanks and best regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [ <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Emily Barabas Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. Februar 2018 15:01 An: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Definition and Treatment of Geographic Names: 2007 Policy and 2012 AGB Dear WT5 members, The WT5 Co-Leaders have prepared a spreadsheet comparing the definition and treatment of geographic names in 2007 Policy and the 2012 Applicant Guidebook to support discussion in the upcoming Work Track 5 meeting, scheduled for Wednesday 7 February at 14:00 UTC. The spreadsheet is available here: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FuPEq0y-cdSUQ1nvhWKhVnG8PLaC2RYXsCpQu91FDqo/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com]. The spreadsheet is intended to focus the discussions during the call on the elements that were in the AGB and Policy, to discuss their merits/issues and determine if they should carry on in scope. The following step will be to consider other geographic terms that were not in the AGB for the group to discuss. If there is time on the upcoming call, the Co-Leaders will start the conversation about terms not included in the AGB. Members are welcome to begin adding comments to the second tab to prepare for the follow-on discussions. To add a comment on a particular cell, click on the cell and select Insert > Comment from the top menu. Comments are also welcome on the mailing list. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976