Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 13 June 2018
Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (13 June). These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted on the wiki. See also the slides posted on the wiki above, as well as the Working Document. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items: Action Items: -- WT5 members should review and comment on the collaborative working document (google document, and attached). -- Staff will ask on the list who might be traveling during next week’s meeting (1400 UTC, 20 June). Notes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Review: No SOI updates 2. Capital City Names -- Coming back to this so we can see where we stand. -- In 2012 they were restricted because they required a letter of support or non-objection. -- Some downsides to how that worked because sometimes it was hard to find the authority. -- Careful to not talk about "cities" because the notion of cities brings in how big, how small, what are we going to do with it, etc. -- Viewing capital cities as unique and exceptional could see that as a category that should remain as it was. -- The WT found some convergence on the idea of not abandoning the current treatment of Capital Cities”. 3. Non-Capital Cities -- Diverging opinions: Some would say no controls and some would say additional controls over what was in 2012. -- Some have suggested a quantitative measure around the size of population. -- Broader than just capital city name, so possibility to match a generic or branded term. -- Looking for ideas of how to navigate the different opinions and how to improve the next application round. -- If we want to reach a solution for everyone for city names we should try to look into a requirement that would help meet all the different interests at stake. -- Monitoring is not workable for all authorities. -- Need guidance of what is or what is not a city. -- Need guidance on how to treat intended use, etc. -- Try to define the requirements and see if there is a package that would cover everything. -- Let's see if we can make a distinction between pre-emptive conditions going into a process which discounts potential applications/applicants and then conditions in an evaluation process. I don't think any one is arguing for open slather. I think we're looking for clarity in an open process and then sensible measures to evaluate applications. -- On cities I feel we could work on parameters or requirements that would serve to meet all the different interests at stake, e.g. having clarity/predictability on what is a city, on the need of prior/early contact between all interested parties, possible means of resolving "conflicts", etc. -- How should we take into account that many cities have been out there for much longer than brands and quite some brand names derived from a city name (rather than the opposite)? --W hy is monitoring not possible for public entities, yet expected for everyone else? -- Look at the issues where you have an applicant that is related to the city as a city, and another that wants to use it for purposes not related to the city as a city. Contrast that to an applicant who wants to use it for unrelated geographic reasons, and then one not related to the city authority. -- Public interest commitment -- no applying to use it for a geographic use, so wouldn't need the letter of non-objection, but then used it for a geographic purpose, that would be against the intent. -- Divide the analysis into three parts 1) control and compliance; 2) objection and contention process -- objection to an applicant and contention sets; 3) control in providing potential applicants about the types of names and the warnings, that would go into an evaluation process. -- It may mean that we need to look at contractual restrictions to address concerns. -- There are different areas of control that can be applied. -- Part of a solution could be to restore the different interests in a way that is agreeable to everyone, but first acknowledge that there are different interest at stake. -- Then define the parameters for the requirements for each interest group. -- The purpose of the process flow was to look at the different areas of processing and note that there are different ways to solve issues. -- Different ways to protect are not mutually exclusive. -- Documents current protections, but doesn't document those that could match a geographic term but is applied for in a geographic way -- even where that intent wasn't stated. -- Think about how to deal with time frame A, B, and C. Identity who are the actors impacted in each of those time frames. Each of these are very different. Here are the three parts again...A) application B) evaluation C) compliance...we could do a little flow chart on this and we will rapidly see where we have agreement... -- Look at something different from the process flow in 2012 -- come up with something for the next call where the pressure points are for particular stakeholders at particular points in time. -- In the attribution to one party of a unique resource the key is at the start of the process (requirements) - later phases (objections/control) are just curative measures, which only will be helpful if the requirements have made sure that all interested parties have had a fair say in the requirements phase. -- Look at the different parts of the process in the process flow and build agreement in the Work Track -- such as basis of protection and how it applies to different terms, which require support or non-objections, challenge mechanisms, etc. 4. ICANN62 Planning: -- Check the schedule online. There is remote participation. -- Planning the activities for each session. 5. AOB: Staff will send an email to the list to see who might be traveling next week.
Dear Julie Hedlund and WT5 colleagues: Thankyou for these notes. 1. Regarding protection of Geo-Names, please refer to point 2.2 of the paper dated 7 June, which I read into the record of the meeting. 2. > Why is monitoring not possible for public entities, yet expected for everyone else? 2.1 It is not expected for 'everyone else'. I believe that it is mainly the trademark industry who finance professional monitoring. Their reaction against GDPR suggests that in the past their monitoring has been conducted without respect for privacy laws, notably through WhoIs. 2.2 There is no comparable, financed, legal industry that could monitor the new GTLD programme on behalf of all interested stakeholders, world wide. (Except, perhaps the ICANN staff). Which is why under point 2.4 of the 7 June paper, we have the case for preventive ('a priori') rights, rather than curative ('ex-post') rights. Regards CW
El 13 de junio de 2018 a las 8:09 Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> escribió:
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (13 June). These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted on the wiki.
See also the slides posted on the wiki above, as well as the Working Document.
Kind regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes/Action Items:
Action Items:
-- WT5 members should review and comment on the collaborative working document (google document, and attached).
-- Staff will ask on the list who might be traveling during next week’s meeting (1400 UTC, 20 June).
Notes:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Review: No SOI updates
2. Capital City Names
-- Coming back to this so we can see where we stand.
-- In 2012 they were restricted because they required a letter of support or non-objection.
-- Some downsides to how that worked because sometimes it was hard to find the authority.
-- Careful to not talk about "cities" because the notion of cities brings in how big, how small, what are we going to do with it, etc.
-- Viewing capital cities as unique and exceptional could see that as a category that should remain as it was.
-- The WT found some convergence on the idea of not abandoning the current treatment of Capital Cities”.
3. Non-Capital Cities
-- Diverging opinions: Some would say no controls and some would say additional controls over what was in 2012.
-- Some have suggested a quantitative measure around the size of population.
-- Broader than just capital city name, so possibility to match a generic or branded term.
-- Looking for ideas of how to navigate the different opinions and how to improve the next application round.
-- If we want to reach a solution for everyone for city names we should try to look into a requirement that would help meet all the different interests at stake.
-- Monitoring is not workable for all authorities.
-- Need guidance of what is or what is not a city.
-- Need guidance on how to treat intended use, etc.
-- Try to define the requirements and see if there is a package that would cover everything.
-- Let's see if we can make a distinction between pre-emptive conditions going into a process which discounts potential applications/applicants and then conditions in an evaluation process. I don't think any one is arguing for open slather. I think we're looking for clarity in an open process and then sensible measures to evaluate applications.
-- On cities I feel we could work on parameters or requirements that would serve to meet all the different interests at stake, e.g. having clarity/predictability on what is a city, on the need of prior/early contact between all interested parties, possible means of resolving "conflicts", etc.
-- How should we take into account that many cities have been out there for much longer than brands and quite some brand names derived from a city name (rather than the opposite)?
--W hy is monitoring not possible for public entities, yet expected for everyone else?
-- Look at the issues where you have an applicant that is related to the city as a city, and another that wants to use it for purposes not related to the city as a city. Contrast that to an applicant who wants to use it for unrelated geographic reasons, and then one not related to the city authority.
-- Public interest commitment -- no applying to use it for a geographic use, so wouldn't need the letter of non-objection, but then used it for a geographic purpose, that would be against the intent.
-- Divide the analysis into three parts 1) control and compliance; 2) objection and contention process -- objection to an applicant and contention sets; 3) control in providing potential applicants about the types of names and the warnings, that would go into an evaluation process.
-- It may mean that we need to look at contractual restrictions to address concerns.
-- There are different areas of control that can be applied.
-- Part of a solution could be to restore the different interests in a way that is agreeable to everyone, but first acknowledge that there are different interest at stake.
-- Then define the parameters for the requirements for each interest group.
-- The purpose of the process flow was to look at the different areas of processing and note that there are different ways to solve issues.
-- Different ways to protect are not mutually exclusive.
-- Documents current protections, but doesn't document those that could match a geographic term but is applied for in a geographic way -- even where that intent wasn't stated.
-- Think about how to deal with time frame A, B, and C. Identity who are the actors impacted in each of those time frames. Each of these are very different. Here are the three parts again...A) application B) evaluation C) compliance...we could do a little flow chart on this and we will rapidly see where we have agreement...
-- Look at something different from the process flow in 2012 -- come up with something for the next call where the pressure points are for particular stakeholders at particular points in time.
-- In the attribution to one party of a unique resource the key is at the start of the process (requirements) - later phases (objections/control) are just curative measures, which only will be helpful if the requirements have made sure that all interested parties have had a fair say in the requirements phase.
-- Look at the different parts of the process in the process flow and build agreement in the Work Track -- such as basis of protection and how it applies to different terms, which require support or non-objections, challenge mechanisms, etc.
4. ICANN62 Planning:
-- Check the schedule online. There is remote participation.
-- Planning the activities for each session.
5. AOB: Staff will send an email to the list to see who might be traveling next week.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Hello everyone I have a slightly different take on who has responsibility for monitoring applications for new TLDs. Governments and public authorities monitor things all the time…that is their job in everything from fishing quota compliance to handing out car registrations. If we argue that governments have national public policy responsibilities (which I believe that they do) then it is also a “responsibility” to take notice of things like a new TLD process which happens very infrequently. We should be confident that with the ever-growing GAC membership, we have a set of stakeholders who are paying attention to the expansion of the domain name system as a platform for economic growth (amongst many other things) for their citizens. And if we were to extend slightly the conversation we had yesterday, we can easily identify where “focus” could come in a new TLD process. I spoke about Phase A (application), Phase B (evaluation) and Phase C (compliance). If governments are also applicants then they are involved in all three phases (and we already have examples of this precise case). If a national government is interested in Phase B as an objector which is entirely possible, then we should have obvious mechanisms for any objector to express their objection and have it handled fairly and appropriately. In Phase A, my sense is that it is an applicant’s job to be really thorough in its risk management and engagement strategy which may include speaking to public authority representatives. This situation applies for all kinds of applications…not just for labels which could be perceived as representing some geographic element. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au> Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. On 14 Jun 2018, at 1:46 am, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Julie Hedlund and WT5 colleagues: Thankyou for these notes. 1. Regarding protection of Geo-Names, please refer to point 2.2 of the paper dated 7 June, which I read into the record of the meeting. 2. > Why is monitoring not possible for public entities, yet expected for everyone else? 2.1 It is not expected for 'everyone else'. I believe that it is mainly the trademark industry who finance professional monitoring. Their reaction against GDPR suggests that in the past their monitoring has been conducted without respect for privacy laws, notably through WhoIs. 2.2 There is no comparable, financed, legal industry that could monitor the new GTLD programme on behalf of all interested stakeholders, world wide. (Except, perhaps the ICANN staff). Which is why under point 2.4 of the 7 June paper, we have the case for preventive ('a priori') rights, rather than curative ('ex-post') rights. Regards CW El 13 de junio de 2018 a las 8:09 Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> escribió: Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (13 June). These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted on the wiki. See also the slides posted on the wiki above, as well as the Working Document. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items: Action Items: -- WT5 members should review and comment on the collaborative working document (google document, and attached). -- Staff will ask on the list who might be traveling during next week’s meeting (1400 UTC, 20 June). Notes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Review: No SOI updates 2. Capital City Names -- Coming back to this so we can see where we stand. -- In 2012 they were restricted because they required a letter of support or non-objection. -- Some downsides to how that worked because sometimes it was hard to find the authority. -- Careful to not talk about "cities" because the notion of cities brings in how big, how small, what are we going to do with it, etc. -- Viewing capital cities as unique and exceptional could see that as a category that should remain as it was. -- The WT found some convergence on the idea of not abandoning the current treatment of Capital Cities”. 3. Non-Capital Cities -- Diverging opinions: Some would say no controls and some would say additional controls over what was in 2012. -- Some have suggested a quantitative measure around the size of population. -- Broader than just capital city name, so possibility to match a generic or branded term. -- Looking for ideas of how to navigate the different opinions and how to improve the next application round. -- If we want to reach a solution for everyone for city names we should try to look into a requirement that would help meet all the different interests at stake. -- Monitoring is not workable for all authorities. -- Need guidance of what is or what is not a city. -- Need guidance on how to treat intended use, etc. -- Try to define the requirements and see if there is a package that would cover everything. -- Let's see if we can make a distinction between pre-emptive conditions going into a process which discounts potential applications/applicants and then conditions in an evaluation process. I don't think any one is arguing for open slather. I think we're looking for clarity in an open process and then sensible measures to evaluate applications. -- On cities I feel we could work on parameters or requirements that would serve to meet all the different interests at stake, e.g. having clarity/predictability on what is a city, on the need of prior/early contact between all interested parties, possible means of resolving "conflicts", etc. -- How should we take into account that many cities have been out there for much longer than brands and quite some brand names derived from a city name (rather than the opposite)? --W hy is monitoring not possible for public entities, yet expected for everyone else? -- Look at the issues where you have an applicant that is related to the city as a city, and another that wants to use it for purposes not related to the city as a city. Contrast that to an applicant who wants to use it for unrelated geographic reasons, and then one not related to the city authority. -- Public interest commitment -- no applying to use it for a geographic use, so wouldn't need the letter of non-objection, but then used it for a geographic purpose, that would be against the intent. -- Divide the analysis into three parts 1) control and compliance; 2) objection and contention process -- objection to an applicant and contention sets; 3) control in providing potential applicants about the types of names and the warnings, that would go into an evaluation process. -- It may mean that we need to look at contractual restrictions to address concerns. -- There are different areas of control that can be applied. -- Part of a solution could be to restore the different interests in a way that is agreeable to everyone, but first acknowledge that there are different interest at stake. -- Then define the parameters for the requirements for each interest group. -- The purpose of the process flow was to look at the different areas of processing and note that there are different ways to solve issues. -- Different ways to protect are not mutually exclusive. -- Documents current protections, but doesn't document those that could match a geographic term but is applied for in a geographic way -- even where that intent wasn't stated. -- Think about how to deal with time frame A, B, and C. Identity who are the actors impacted in each of those time frames. Each of these are very different. Here are the three parts again...A) application B) evaluation C) compliance...we could do a little flow chart on this and we will rapidly see where we have agreement... -- Look at something different from the process flow in 2012 -- come up with something for the next call where the pressure points are for particular stakeholders at particular points in time. -- In the attribution to one party of a unique resource the key is at the start of the process (requirements) - later phases (objections/control) are just curative measures, which only will be helpful if the requirements have made sure that all interested parties have had a fair say in the requirements phase. -- Look at the different parts of the process in the process flow and build agreement in the Work Track -- such as basis of protection and how it applies to different terms, which require support or non-objections, challenge mechanisms, etc. 4. ICANN62 Planning: -- Check the schedule online. There is remote participation. -- Planning the activities for each session. 5. AOB: Staff will send an email to the list to see who might be traveling next week. _______________________________________________ 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
Dear all As has been explained time and again this is just not realistic for local public authorities who do not sit in the GAC and are very far from having a direct interest in ICANN operations, especially those from developing countries. As to participation in the GAC itself is already way below the formal membership, especially for developing countries, precisely because the topic is so specific and the resources at hand so limited. I would sincerely hope that this would be taken seriously as it is a factual situation. best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au> Datum: 14. Juni 2018 um 01:18:52 MESZ An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 13 June 2018 Hello everyone I have a slightly different take on who has responsibility for monitoring applications for new TLDs. Governments and public authorities monitor things all the time…that is their job in everything from fishing quota compliance to handing out car registrations. If we argue that governments have national public policy responsibilities (which I believe that they do) then it is also a “responsibility” to take notice of things like a new TLD process which happens very infrequently. We should be confident that with the ever-growing GAC membership, we have a set of stakeholders who are paying attention to the expansion of the domain name system as a platform for economic growth (amongst many other things) for their citizens. And if we were to extend slightly the conversation we had yesterday, we can easily identify where “focus” could come in a new TLD process. I spoke about Phase A (application), Phase B (evaluation) and Phase C (compliance). If governments are also applicants then they are involved in all three phases (and we already have examples of this precise case). If a national government is interested in Phase B as an objector which is entirely possible, then we should have obvious mechanisms for any objector to express their objection and have it handled fairly and appropriately. In Phase A, my sense is that it is an applicant’s job to be really thorough in its risk management and engagement strategy which may include speaking to public authority representatives. This situation applies for all kinds of applications…not just for labels which could be perceived as representing some geographic element. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au> Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. On 14 Jun 2018, at 1:46 am, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Julie Hedlund and WT5 colleagues: Thankyou for these notes. 1. Regarding protection of Geo-Names, please refer to point 2.2 of the paper dated 7 June, which I read into the record of the meeting. 2. > Why is monitoring not possible for public entities, yet expected for everyone else? 2.1 It is not expected for 'everyone else'. I believe that it is mainly the trademark industry who finance professional monitoring. Their reaction against GDPR suggests that in the past their monitoring has been conducted without respect for privacy laws, notably through WhoIs. 2.2 There is no comparable, financed, legal industry that could monitor the new GTLD programme on behalf of all interested stakeholders, world wide. (Except, perhaps the ICANN staff). Which is why under point 2.4 of the 7 June paper, we have the case for preventive ('a priori') rights, rather than curative ('ex-post') rights. Regards CW El 13 de junio de 2018 a las 8:09 Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> escribió: Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (13 June). These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted on the wiki. See also the slides posted on the wiki above, as well as the Working Document. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items: Action Items: -- WT5 members should review and comment on the collaborative working document (google document, and attached). -- Staff will ask on the list who might be traveling during next week’s meeting (1400 UTC, 20 June). Notes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Review: No SOI updates 2. Capital City Names -- Coming back to this so we can see where we stand. -- In 2012 they were restricted because they required a letter of support or non-objection. -- Some downsides to how that worked because sometimes it was hard to find the authority. -- Careful to not talk about "cities" because the notion of cities brings in how big, how small, what are we going to do with it, etc. -- Viewing capital cities as unique and exceptional could see that as a category that should remain as it was. -- The WT found some convergence on the idea of not abandoning the current treatment of Capital Cities”. 3. Non-Capital Cities -- Diverging opinions: Some would say no controls and some would say additional controls over what was in 2012. -- Some have suggested a quantitative measure around the size of population. -- Broader than just capital city name, so possibility to match a generic or branded term. -- Looking for ideas of how to navigate the different opinions and how to improve the next application round. -- If we want to reach a solution for everyone for city names we should try to look into a requirement that would help meet all the different interests at stake. -- Monitoring is not workable for all authorities. -- Need guidance of what is or what is not a city. -- Need guidance on how to treat intended use, etc. -- Try to define the requirements and see if there is a package that would cover everything. -- Let's see if we can make a distinction between pre-emptive conditions going into a process which discounts potential applications/applicants and then conditions in an evaluation process. I don't think any one is arguing for open slather. I think we're looking for clarity in an open process and then sensible measures to evaluate applications. -- On cities I feel we could work on parameters or requirements that would serve to meet all the different interests at stake, e.g. having clarity/predictability on what is a city, on the need of prior/early contact between all interested parties, possible means of resolving "conflicts", etc. -- How should we take into account that many cities have been out there for much longer than brands and quite some brand names derived from a city name (rather than the opposite)? --W hy is monitoring not possible for public entities, yet expected for everyone else? -- Look at the issues where you have an applicant that is related to the city as a city, and another that wants to use it for purposes not related to the city as a city. Contrast that to an applicant who wants to use it for unrelated geographic reasons, and then one not related to the city authority. -- Public interest commitment -- no applying to use it for a geographic use, so wouldn't need the letter of non-objection, but then used it for a geographic purpose, that would be against the intent. -- Divide the analysis into three parts 1) control and compliance; 2) objection and contention process -- objection to an applicant and contention sets; 3) control in providing potential applicants about the types of names and the warnings, that would go into an evaluation process. -- It may mean that we need to look at contractual restrictions to address concerns. -- There are different areas of control that can be applied. -- Part of a solution could be to restore the different interests in a way that is agreeable to everyone, but first acknowledge that there are different interest at stake. -- Then define the parameters for the requirements for each interest group. -- The purpose of the process flow was to look at the different areas of processing and note that there are different ways to solve issues. -- Different ways to protect are not mutually exclusive. -- Documents current protections, but doesn't document those that could match a geographic term but is applied for in a geographic way -- even where that intent wasn't stated. -- Think about how to deal with time frame A, B, and C. Identity who are the actors impacted in each of those time frames. Each of these are very different. Here are the three parts again...A) application B) evaluation C) compliance...we could do a little flow chart on this and we will rapidly see where we have agreement... -- Look at something different from the process flow in 2012 -- come up with something for the next call where the pressure points are for particular stakeholders at particular points in time. -- In the attribution to one party of a unique resource the key is at the start of the process (requirements) - later phases (objections/control) are just curative measures, which only will be helpful if the requirements have made sure that all interested parties have had a fair say in the requirements phase. -- Look at the different parts of the process in the process flow and build agreement in the Work Track -- such as basis of protection and how it applies to different terms, which require support or non-objections, challenge mechanisms, etc. 4. ICANN62 Planning: -- Check the schedule online. There is remote participation. -- Planning the activities for each session. 5. AOB: Staff will send an email to the list to see who might be traveling next week. _______________________________________________ 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
Dear All It is nit true Governments do not and will not have the possibility to monitor all Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Jun 2018, at 23:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear all
As has been explained time and again this is just not realistic for local public authorities who do not sit in the GAC and are very far from having a direct interest in ICANN operations, especially those from developing countries.
As to participation in the GAC itself is already way below the formal membership, especially for developing countries, precisely because the topic is so specific and the resources at hand so limited.
I would sincerely hope that this would be taken seriously as it is a factual situation.
best Jorge
________________________________
Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au> Datum: 14. Juni 2018 um 01:18:52 MESZ An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 13 June 2018
Hello everyone
I have a slightly different take on who has responsibility for monitoring applications for new TLDs. Governments and public authorities monitor things all the time…that is their job in everything from fishing quota compliance to handing out car registrations. If we argue that governments have national public policy responsibilities (which I believe that they do) then it is also a “responsibility” to take notice of things like a new TLD process which happens very infrequently. We should be confident that with the ever-growing GAC membership, we have a set of stakeholders who are paying attention to the expansion of the domain name system as a platform for economic growth (amongst many other things) for their citizens.
And if we were to extend slightly the conversation we had yesterday, we can easily identify where “focus” could come in a new TLD process. I spoke about Phase A (application), Phase B (evaluation) and Phase C (compliance). If governments are also applicants then they are involved in all three phases (and we already have examples of this precise case). If a national government is interested in Phase B as an objector which is entirely possible, then we should have obvious mechanisms for any objector to express their objection and have it handled fairly and appropriately. In Phase A, my sense is that it is an applicant’s job to be really thorough in its risk management and engagement strategy which may include speaking to public authority representatives.
This situation applies for all kinds of applications…not just for labels which could be perceived as representing some geographic element.
Liz
…. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au>
Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
On 14 Jun 2018, at 1:46 am, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:
Dear Julie Hedlund and WT5 colleagues:
Thankyou for these notes.
1. Regarding protection of Geo-Names, please refer to point 2.2 of the paper dated 7 June, which I read into the record of the meeting.
2. > Why is monitoring not possible for public entities, yet expected for everyone else?
2.1 It is not expected for 'everyone else'. I believe that it is mainly the trademark industry who finance professional monitoring. Their reaction against GDPR suggests that in the past their monitoring has been conducted without respect for privacy laws, notably through WhoIs.
2.2 There is no comparable, financed, legal industry that could monitor the new GTLD programme on behalf of all interested stakeholders, world wide. (Except, perhaps the ICANN staff). Which is why under point 2.4 of the 7 June paper, we have the case for preventive ('a priori') rights, rather than curative ('ex-post') rights.
Regards
CW
El 13 de junio de 2018 a las 8:09 Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> escribió:
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (13 June). These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted on the wiki.
See also the slides posted on the wiki above, as well as the Working Document.
Kind regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes/Action Items:
Action Items:
-- WT5 members should review and comment on the collaborative working document (google document, and attached).
-- Staff will ask on the list who might be traveling during next week’s meeting (1400 UTC, 20 June).
Notes:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Review: No SOI updates
2. Capital City Names
-- Coming back to this so we can see where we stand.
-- In 2012 they were restricted because they required a letter of support or non-objection.
-- Some downsides to how that worked because sometimes it was hard to find the authority.
-- Careful to not talk about "cities" because the notion of cities brings in how big, how small, what are we going to do with it, etc.
-- Viewing capital cities as unique and exceptional could see that as a category that should remain as it was.
-- The WT found some convergence on the idea of not abandoning the current treatment of Capital Cities”.
3. Non-Capital Cities
-- Diverging opinions: Some would say no controls and some would say additional controls over what was in 2012.
-- Some have suggested a quantitative measure around the size of population.
-- Broader than just capital city name, so possibility to match a generic or branded term.
-- Looking for ideas of how to navigate the different opinions and how to improve the next application round.
-- If we want to reach a solution for everyone for city names we should try to look into a requirement that would help meet all the different interests at stake.
-- Monitoring is not workable for all authorities.
-- Need guidance of what is or what is not a city.
-- Need guidance on how to treat intended use, etc.
-- Try to define the requirements and see if there is a package that would cover everything.
-- Let's see if we can make a distinction between pre-emptive conditions going into a process which discounts potential applications/applicants and then conditions in an evaluation process. I don't think any one is arguing for open slather. I think we're looking for clarity in an open process and then sensible measures to evaluate applications.
-- On cities I feel we could work on parameters or requirements that would serve to meet all the different interests at stake, e.g. having clarity/predictability on what is a city, on the need of prior/early contact between all interested parties, possible means of resolving "conflicts", etc.
-- How should we take into account that many cities have been out there for much longer than brands and quite some brand names derived from a city name (rather than the opposite)?
--W hy is monitoring not possible for public entities, yet expected for everyone else?
-- Look at the issues where you have an applicant that is related to the city as a city, and another that wants to use it for purposes not related to the city as a city. Contrast that to an applicant who wants to use it for unrelated geographic reasons, and then one not related to the city authority.
-- Public interest commitment -- no applying to use it for a geographic use, so wouldn't need the letter of non-objection, but then used it for a geographic purpose, that would be against the intent.
-- Divide the analysis into three parts 1) control and compliance; 2) objection and contention process -- objection to an applicant and contention sets; 3) control in providing potential applicants about the types of names and the warnings, that would go into an evaluation process.
-- It may mean that we need to look at contractual restrictions to address concerns.
-- There are different areas of control that can be applied.
-- Part of a solution could be to restore the different interests in a way that is agreeable to everyone, but first acknowledge that there are different interest at stake.
-- Then define the parameters for the requirements for each interest group.
-- The purpose of the process flow was to look at the different areas of processing and note that there are different ways to solve issues.
-- Different ways to protect are not mutually exclusive.
-- Documents current protections, but doesn't document those that could match a geographic term but is applied for in a geographic way -- even where that intent wasn't stated.
-- Think about how to deal with time frame A, B, and C. Identity who are the actors impacted in each of those time frames. Each of these are very different. Here are the three parts again...A) application B) evaluation C) compliance...we could do a little flow chart on this and we will rapidly see where we have agreement...
-- Look at something different from the process flow in 2012 -- come up with something for the next call where the pressure points are for particular stakeholders at particular points in time.
-- In the attribution to one party of a unique resource the key is at the start of the process (requirements) - later phases (objections/control) are just curative measures, which only will be helpful if the requirements have made sure that all interested parties have had a fair say in the requirements phase.
-- Look at the different parts of the process in the process flow and build agreement in the Work Track -- such as basis of protection and how it applies to different terms, which require support or non-objections, challenge mechanisms, etc.
4. ICANN62 Planning:
-- Check the schedule online. There is remote participation.
-- Planning the activities for each session.
5. AOB: Staff will send an email to the list to see who might be traveling next week.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear Liz, I understand where "you come from" with the notion that governments "pay attention": “We should be confident that with the ever-growing GAC membership, we have a set of stakeholders who are paying attention to the expansion of the domain name system as a platform for economic growth (amongst many other things) for their citizens……” And another member here recently assumed, that “most geo applications were submitted by governments…”. There are a couple of systematic, structural and perceptional issues here: * It doesn’t really matter what happened in the 2012 round in regard to GEO applications; the game in 2021 will be very different. * There is zero hard evidence that in more than a few geo applications the Government was involved in any of the relevant tasks: o Business plan creation o Funding o Ownership in the applicant entity o Policy or company board seats o Fostering community support o Application writing o Introduction of the new gTLD o gTLD marketing * As country names where “censored” almost all geo applications were city or small region based. But these have their own “governing entities” – the federal Governments where usually NOT involved at all! And SHOULDN’T! I very much disagree that we force city Governments into giving up their autonomy. Why do you want to strengthen the national Governments when nobody ever asked for it? * It is NOT the scope of GAC (or its individual members) to “monitor applications submissions” * While 2012 and 2021 were (will be) distinct events – once we “go into continues application submission phase” there is just no way all cities (or their Governments) can monitor all applications. They will however not even in “rounds”. Thanks, Alexander
Von: Liz Williams < <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> liz.williams@auda.org.au>
Datum: 14. Juni 2018 um 01:18:52 MESZ
An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 < <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 13 June 2018
Hello everyone
I have a slightly different take on who has responsibility for monitoring applications for new TLDs. Governments and public authorities monitor things all the time…that is their job in everything from fishing quota compliance to handing out car registrations. If we argue that governments have national public policy responsibilities (which I believe that they do) then it is also a “responsibility” to take notice of things like a new TLD process which happens very infrequently. We should be confident that with the ever-growing GAC membership, we have a set of stakeholders who are paying attention to the expansion of the domain name system as a platform for economic growth (amongst many other things) for their citizens.
And if we were to extend slightly the conversation we had yesterday, we can easily identify where “focus” could come in a new TLD process. I spoke about Phase A (application), Phase B (evaluation) and Phase C (compliance). If governments are also applicants then they are involved in all three phases (and we already have examples of this precise case). If a national government is interested in Phase B as an objector which is entirely possible, then we should have obvious mechanisms for any objector to express their objection and have it handled fairly and appropriately. In Phase A, my sense is that it is an applicant’s job to be really thorough in its risk management and engagement strategy which may include speaking to public authority representatives.
This situation applies for all kinds of applications…not just for labels which could be perceived as representing some geographic element.
Liz
….
Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd
M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757
E: <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>
<http://www.auda.org.au%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au>
Important Notice
This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
On 14 Jun 2018, at 1:46 am, <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu%3cmailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson < <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu%3cmailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:
Dear Julie Hedlund and WT5 colleagues:
Thankyou for these notes.
1. Regarding protection of Geo-Names, please refer to point 2.2 of the paper dated 7 June, which I read into the record of the meeting.
2. > Why is monitoring not possible for public entities, yet expected for everyone else?
2.1 It is not expected for 'everyone else'. I believe that it is mainly the trademark industry who finance professional monitoring. Their reaction against GDPR suggests that in the past their monitoring has been conducted without respect for privacy laws, notably through WhoIs.
2.2 There is no comparable, financed, legal industry that could monitor the new GTLD programme on behalf of all interested stakeholders, world wide. (Except, perhaps the ICANN staff). Which is why under point 2.4 of the 7 June paper, we have the case for preventive ('a priori') rights, rather than curative ('ex-post') rights.
Regards
CW
El 13 de junio de 2018 a las 8:09 Julie Hedlund < <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org%3cmailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> escribió:
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (13 June). These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted on the wiki.
See also the slides posted on the wiki above, as well as the Working Document.
Kind regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Notes/Action Items:
Action Items:
-- WT5 members should review and comment on the collaborative working document (google document, and attached).
-- Staff will ask on the list who might be traveling during next week’s meeting (1400 UTC, 20 June).
Notes:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Review: No SOI updates
2. Capital City Names
-- Coming back to this so we can see where we stand.
-- In 2012 they were restricted because they required a letter of support or non-objection.
-- Some downsides to how that worked because sometimes it was hard to find the authority.
-- Careful to not talk about "cities" because the notion of cities brings in how big, how small, what are we going to do with it, etc.
-- Viewing capital cities as unique and exceptional could see that as a category that should remain as it was.
-- The WT found some convergence on the idea of not abandoning the current treatment of Capital Cities”.
3. Non-Capital Cities
-- Diverging opinions: Some would say no controls and some would say additional controls over what was in 2012.
-- Some have suggested a quantitative measure around the size of population.
-- Broader than just capital city name, so possibility to match a generic or branded term.
-- Looking for ideas of how to navigate the different opinions and how to improve the next application round.
-- If we want to reach a solution for everyone for city names we should try to look into a requirement that would help meet all the different interests at stake.
-- Monitoring is not workable for all authorities.
-- Need guidance of what is or what is not a city.
-- Need guidance on how to treat intended use, etc.
-- Try to define the requirements and see if there is a package that would cover everything.
-- Let's see if we can make a distinction between pre-emptive conditions going into a process which discounts potential applications/applicants and then conditions in an evaluation process. I don't think any one is arguing for open slather. I think we're looking for clarity in an open process and then sensible measures to evaluate applications.
-- On cities I feel we could work on parameters or requirements that would serve to meet all the different interests at stake, e.g. having clarity/predictability on what is a city, on the need of prior/early contact between all interested parties, possible means of resolving "conflicts", etc.
-- How should we take into account that many cities have been out there for much longer than brands and quite some brand names derived from a city name (rather than the opposite)?
--W hy is monitoring not possible for public entities, yet expected for everyone else?
-- Look at the issues where you have an applicant that is related to the city as a city, and another that wants to use it for purposes not related to the city as a city. Contrast that to an applicant who wants to use it for unrelated geographic reasons, and then one not related to the city authority.
-- Public interest commitment -- no applying to use it for a geographic use, so wouldn't need the letter of non-objection, but then used it for a geographic purpose, that would be against the intent.
-- Divide the analysis into three parts 1) control and compliance; 2) objection and contention process -- objection to an applicant and contention sets; 3) control in providing potential applicants about the types of names and the warnings, that would go into an evaluation process.
-- It may mean that we need to look at contractual restrictions to address concerns.
-- There are different areas of control that can be applied.
-- Part of a solution could be to restore the different interests in a way that is agreeable to everyone, but first acknowledge that there are different interest at stake.
-- Then define the parameters for the requirements for each interest group.
-- The purpose of the process flow was to look at the different areas of processing and note that there are different ways to solve issues.
-- Different ways to protect are not mutually exclusive.
-- Documents current protections, but doesn't document those that could match a geographic term but is applied for in a geographic way -- even where that intent wasn't stated.
-- Think about how to deal with time frame A, B, and C. Identity who are the actors impacted in each of those time frames. Each of these are very different. Here are the three parts again...A) application B) evaluation C) compliance...we could do a little flow chart on this and we will rapidly see where we have agreement...
-- Look at something different from the process flow in 2012 -- come up with something for the next call where the pressure points are for particular stakeholders at particular points in time.
-- In the attribution to one party of a unique resource the key is at the start of the process (requirements) - later phases (objections/control) are just curative measures, which only will be helpful if the requirements have made sure that all interested parties have had a fair say in the requirements phase.
-- Look at the different parts of the process in the process flow and build agreement in the Work Track -- such as basis of protection and how it applies to different terms, which require support or non-objections, challenge mechanisms, etc.
4. ICANN62 Planning:
-- Check the schedule online. There is remote participation.
-- Planning the activities for each session.
5. AOB: Staff will send an email to the list to see who might be traveling next week.
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
+1. Absolutely true what Jorge says. -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: jeudi 14 juin 2018 06:11 To: liz.williams@auda.org.au; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 13 June 2018 Dear all As has been explained time and again this is just not realistic for local public authorities who do not sit in the GAC and are very far from having a direct interest in ICANN operations, especially those from developing countries. As to participation in the GAC itself is already way below the formal membership, especially for developing countries, precisely because the topic is so specific and the resources at hand so limited. I would sincerely hope that this would be taken seriously as it is a factual situation. best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au> Datum: 14. Juni 2018 um 01:18:52 MESZ An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 13 June 2018 Hello everyone I have a slightly different take on who has responsibility for monitoring applications for new TLDs. Governments and public authorities monitor things all the time.that is their job in everything from fishing quota compliance to handing out car registrations. If we argue that governments have national public policy responsibilities (which I believe that they do) then it is also a "responsibility" to take notice of things like a new TLD process which happens very infrequently. We should be confident that with the ever-growing GAC membership, we have a set of stakeholders who are paying attention to the expansion of the domain name system as a platform for economic growth (amongst many other things) for their citizens. And if we were to extend slightly the conversation we had yesterday, we can easily identify where "focus" could come in a new TLD process. I spoke about Phase A (application), Phase B (evaluation) and Phase C (compliance). If governments are also applicants then they are involved in all three phases (and we already have examples of this precise case). If a national government is interested in Phase B as an objector which is entirely possible, then we should have obvious mechanisms for any objector to express their objection and have it handled fairly and appropriately. In Phase A, my sense is that it is an applicant's job to be really thorough in its risk management and engagement strategy which may include speaking to public authority representatives. This situation applies for all kinds of applications.not just for labels which could be perceived as representing some geographic element. Liz .. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au> Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. On 14 Jun 2018, at 1:46 am, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Julie Hedlund and WT5 colleagues: Thankyou for these notes. 1. Regarding protection of Geo-Names, please refer to point 2.2 of the paper dated 7 June, which I read into the record of the meeting. 2. > Why is monitoring not possible for public entities, yet expected for everyone else? 2.1 It is not expected for 'everyone else'. I believe that it is mainly the trademark industry who finance professional monitoring. Their reaction against GDPR suggests that in the past their monitoring has been conducted without respect for privacy laws, notably through WhoIs. 2.2 There is no comparable, financed, legal industry that could monitor the new GTLD programme on behalf of all interested stakeholders, world wide. (Except, perhaps the ICANN staff). Which is why under point 2.4 of the 7 June paper, we have the case for preventive ('a priori') rights, rather than curative ('ex-post') rights. Regards CW El 13 de junio de 2018 a las 8:09 Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> escribió: Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (13 June). These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted on the wiki. See also the slides posted on the wiki above, as well as the Working Document. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items: Action Items: -- WT5 members should review and comment on the collaborative working document (google document, and attached). -- Staff will ask on the list who might be traveling during next week's meeting (1400 UTC, 20 June). Notes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Review: No SOI updates 2. Capital City Names -- Coming back to this so we can see where we stand. -- In 2012 they were restricted because they required a letter of support or non-objection. -- Some downsides to how that worked because sometimes it was hard to find the authority. -- Careful to not talk about "cities" because the notion of cities brings in how big, how small, what are we going to do with it, etc. -- Viewing capital cities as unique and exceptional could see that as a category that should remain as it was. -- The WT found some convergence on the idea of not abandoning the current treatment of Capital Cities". 3. Non-Capital Cities -- Diverging opinions: Some would say no controls and some would say additional controls over what was in 2012. -- Some have suggested a quantitative measure around the size of population. -- Broader than just capital city name, so possibility to match a generic or branded term. -- Looking for ideas of how to navigate the different opinions and how to improve the next application round. -- If we want to reach a solution for everyone for city names we should try to look into a requirement that would help meet all the different interests at stake. -- Monitoring is not workable for all authorities. -- Need guidance of what is or what is not a city. -- Need guidance on how to treat intended use, etc. -- Try to define the requirements and see if there is a package that would cover everything. -- Let's see if we can make a distinction between pre-emptive conditions going into a process which discounts potential applications/applicants and then conditions in an evaluation process. I don't think any one is arguing for open slather. I think we're looking for clarity in an open process and then sensible measures to evaluate applications. -- On cities I feel we could work on parameters or requirements that would serve to meet all the different interests at stake, e.g. having clarity/predictability on what is a city, on the need of prior/early contact between all interested parties, possible means of resolving "conflicts", etc. -- How should we take into account that many cities have been out there for much longer than brands and quite some brand names derived from a city name (rather than the opposite)? --W hy is monitoring not possible for public entities, yet expected for everyone else? -- Look at the issues where you have an applicant that is related to the city as a city, and another that wants to use it for purposes not related to the city as a city. Contrast that to an applicant who wants to use it for unrelated geographic reasons, and then one not related to the city authority. -- Public interest commitment -- no applying to use it for a geographic use, so wouldn't need the letter of non-objection, but then used it for a geographic purpose, that would be against the intent. -- Divide the analysis into three parts 1) control and compliance; 2) objection and contention process -- objection to an applicant and contention sets; 3) control in providing potential applicants about the types of names and the warnings, that would go into an evaluation process. -- It may mean that we need to look at contractual restrictions to address concerns. -- There are different areas of control that can be applied. -- Part of a solution could be to restore the different interests in a way that is agreeable to everyone, but first acknowledge that there are different interest at stake. -- Then define the parameters for the requirements for each interest group. -- The purpose of the process flow was to look at the different areas of processing and note that there are different ways to solve issues. -- Different ways to protect are not mutually exclusive. -- Documents current protections, but doesn't document those that could match a geographic term but is applied for in a geographic way -- even where that intent wasn't stated. -- Think about how to deal with time frame A, B, and C. Identity who are the actors impacted in each of those time frames. Each of these are very different. Here are the three parts again...A) application B) evaluation C) compliance...we could do a little flow chart on this and we will rapidly see where we have agreement... -- Look at something different from the process flow in 2012 -- come up with something for the next call where the pressure points are for particular stakeholders at particular points in time. -- In the attribution to one party of a unique resource the key is at the start of the process (requirements) - later phases (objections/control) are just curative measures, which only will be helpful if the requirements have made sure that all interested parties have had a fair say in the requirements phase. -- Look at the different parts of the process in the process flow and build agreement in the Work Track -- such as basis of protection and how it applies to different terms, which require support or non-objections, challenge mechanisms, etc. 4. ICANN62 Planning: -- Check the schedule online. There is remote participation. -- Planning the activities for each session. 5. AOB: Staff will send an email to the list to see who might be traveling next week. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway **************************************************
Dear Liz, in my opinion it is our task as working group to enhance your described situation about Phase A as this caused apparently issues in the last round: “In Phase A, my sense is that it is an applicant’s job to be really thorough in its risk management and engagement strategy which may include speaking to public authority representatives.” A desireable outcome of our work would be to increase the predictability and transparency of the application process – both for applicants and the ICANN community. So why should we keep what it is in the AGB 2012 and not consider means which help to reduce issues and enhance the process? Proposals by different WT members which have been made in this context included + geo database to check whether the intended applied-for name equates a geoName + geo Advisory panel + include check if the intended applied-for name equates a geoName Kind regards Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Liz Williams Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Juni 2018 01:18 An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 13 June 2018 Hello everyone I have a slightly different take on who has responsibility for monitoring applications for new TLDs. Governments and public authorities monitor things all the time…that is their job in everything from fishing quota compliance to handing out car registrations. If we argue that governments have national public policy responsibilities (which I believe that they do) then it is also a “responsibility” to take notice of things like a new TLD process which happens very infrequently. We should be confident that with the ever-growing GAC membership, we have a set of stakeholders who are paying attention to the expansion of the domain name system as a platform for economic growth (amongst many other things) for their citizens. And if we were to extend slightly the conversation we had yesterday, we can easily identify where “focus” could come in a new TLD process. I spoke about Phase A (application), Phase B (evaluation) and Phase C (compliance). If governments are also applicants then they are involved in all three phases (and we already have examples of this precise case). If a national government is interested in Phase B as an objector which is entirely possible, then we should have obvious mechanisms for any objector to express their objection and have it handled fairly and appropriately. In Phase A, my sense is that it is an applicant’s job to be really thorough in its risk management and engagement strategy which may include speaking to public authority representatives. This situation applies for all kinds of applications…not just for labels which could be perceived as representing some geographic element. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au> Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. On 14 Jun 2018, at 1:46 am, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Julie Hedlund and WT5 colleagues: Thankyou for these notes. 1. Regarding protection of Geo-Names, please refer to point 2.2 of the paper dated 7 June, which I read into the record of the meeting. 2. > Why is monitoring not possible for public entities, yet expected for everyone else? 2.1 It is not expected for 'everyone else'. I believe that it is mainly the trademark industry who finance professional monitoring. Their reaction against GDPR suggests that in the past their monitoring has been conducted without respect for privacy laws, notably through WhoIs. 2.2 There is no comparable, financed, legal industry that could monitor the new GTLD programme on behalf of all interested stakeholders, world wide. (Except, perhaps the ICANN staff). Which is why under point 2.4 of the 7 June paper, we have the case for preventive ('a priori') rights, rather than curative ('ex-post') rights. Regards CW El 13 de junio de 2018 a las 8:09 Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> escribió: Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (13 June). These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted on the wiki. See also the slides posted on the wiki above, as well as the Working Document. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items: Action Items: -- WT5 members should review and comment on the collaborative working document (google document, and attached). -- Staff will ask on the list who might be traveling during next week’s meeting (1400 UTC, 20 June). Notes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Review: No SOI updates 2. Capital City Names -- Coming back to this so we can see where we stand. -- In 2012 they were restricted because they required a letter of support or non-objection. -- Some downsides to how that worked because sometimes it was hard to find the authority. -- Careful to not talk about "cities" because the notion of cities brings in how big, how small, what are we going to do with it, etc. -- Viewing capital cities as unique and exceptional could see that as a category that should remain as it was. -- The WT found some convergence on the idea of not abandoning the current treatment of Capital Cities”. 3. Non-Capital Cities -- Diverging opinions: Some would say no controls and some would say additional controls over what was in 2012. -- Some have suggested a quantitative measure around the size of population. -- Broader than just capital city name, so possibility to match a generic or branded term. -- Looking for ideas of how to navigate the different opinions and how to improve the next application round. -- If we want to reach a solution for everyone for city names we should try to look into a requirement that would help meet all the different interests at stake. -- Monitoring is not workable for all authorities. -- Need guidance of what is or what is not a city. -- Need guidance on how to treat intended use, etc. -- Try to define the requirements and see if there is a package that would cover everything. -- Let's see if we can make a distinction between pre-emptive conditions going into a process which discounts potential applications/applicants and then conditions in an evaluation process. I don't think any one is arguing for open slather. I think we're looking for clarity in an open process and then sensible measures to evaluate applications. -- On cities I feel we could work on parameters or requirements that would serve to meet all the different interests at stake, e.g. having clarity/predictability on what is a city, on the need of prior/early contact between all interested parties, possible means of resolving "conflicts", etc. -- How should we take into account that many cities have been out there for much longer than brands and quite some brand names derived from a city name (rather than the opposite)? --W hy is monitoring not possible for public entities, yet expected for everyone else? -- Look at the issues where you have an applicant that is related to the city as a city, and another that wants to use it for purposes not related to the city as a city. Contrast that to an applicant who wants to use it for unrelated geographic reasons, and then one not related to the city authority. -- Public interest commitment -- no applying to use it for a geographic use, so wouldn't need the letter of non-objection, but then used it for a geographic purpose, that would be against the intent. -- Divide the analysis into three parts 1) control and compliance; 2) objection and contention process -- objection to an applicant and contention sets; 3) control in providing potential applicants about the types of names and the warnings, that would go into an evaluation process. -- It may mean that we need to look at contractual restrictions to address concerns. -- There are different areas of control that can be applied. -- Part of a solution could be to restore the different interests in a way that is agreeable to everyone, but first acknowledge that there are different interest at stake. -- Then define the parameters for the requirements for each interest group. -- The purpose of the process flow was to look at the different areas of processing and note that there are different ways to solve issues. -- Different ways to protect are not mutually exclusive. -- Documents current protections, but doesn't document those that could match a geographic term but is applied for in a geographic way -- even where that intent wasn't stated. -- Think about how to deal with time frame A, B, and C. Identity who are the actors impacted in each of those time frames. Each of these are very different. Here are the three parts again...A) application B) evaluation C) compliance...we could do a little flow chart on this and we will rapidly see where we have agreement... -- Look at something different from the process flow in 2012 -- come up with something for the next call where the pressure points are for particular stakeholders at particular points in time. -- In the attribution to one party of a unique resource the key is at the start of the process (requirements) - later phases (objections/control) are just curative measures, which only will be helpful if the requirements have made sure that all interested parties have had a fair say in the requirements phase. -- Look at the different parts of the process in the process flow and build agreement in the Work Track -- such as basis of protection and how it applies to different terms, which require support or non-objections, challenge mechanisms, etc. 4. ICANN62 Planning: -- Check the schedule online. There is remote participation. -- Planning the activities for each session. 5. AOB: Staff will send an email to the list to see who might be traveling next week. _______________________________________________ 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
Perfect…and am always happy to do that. …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au> Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. On 14 Jun 2018, at 4:37 pm, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.com>> wrote: Dear Liz, in my opinion it is our task as working group to enhance your described situation about Phase A as this caused apparently issues in the last round: “In Phase A, my sense is that it is an applicant’s job to be really thorough in its risk management and engagement strategy which may include speaking to public authority representatives.” A desireable outcome of our work would be to increase the predictability and transparency of the application process – both for applicants and the ICANN community. So why should we keep what it is in the AGB 2012 and not consider means which help to reduce issues and enhance the process? Proposals by different WT members which have been made in this context included + geo database to check whether the intended applied-for name equates a geoName + geo Advisory panel + include check if the intended applied-for name equates a geoName Kind regards Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting/> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Liz Williams Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Juni 2018 01:18 An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 13 June 2018 Hello everyone I have a slightly different take on who has responsibility for monitoring applications for new TLDs. Governments and public authorities monitor things all the time…that is their job in everything from fishing quota compliance to handing out car registrations. If we argue that governments have national public policy responsibilities (which I believe that they do) then it is also a “responsibility” to take notice of things like a new TLD process which happens very infrequently. We should be confident that with the ever-growing GAC membership, we have a set of stakeholders who are paying attention to the expansion of the domain name system as a platform for economic growth (amongst many other things) for their citizens. And if we were to extend slightly the conversation we had yesterday, we can easily identify where “focus” could come in a new TLD process. I spoke about Phase A (application), Phase B (evaluation) and Phase C (compliance). If governments are also applicants then they are involved in all three phases (and we already have examples of this precise case). If a national government is interested in Phase B as an objector which is entirely possible, then we should have obvious mechanisms for any objector to express their objection and have it handled fairly and appropriately. In Phase A, my sense is that it is an applicant’s job to be really thorough in its risk management and engagement strategy which may include speaking to public authority representatives. This situation applies for all kinds of applications…not just for labels which could be perceived as representing some geographic element. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au/> Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. On 14 Jun 2018, at 1:46 am, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Julie Hedlund and WT5 colleagues: Thankyou for these notes. 1. Regarding protection of Geo-Names, please refer to point 2.2 of the paper dated 7 June, which I read into the record of the meeting. 2. > Why is monitoring not possible for public entities, yet expected for everyone else? 2.1 It is not expected for 'everyone else'. I believe that it is mainly the trademark industry who finance professional monitoring. Their reaction against GDPR suggests that in the past their monitoring has been conducted without respect for privacy laws, notably through WhoIs. 2.2 There is no comparable, financed, legal industry that could monitor the new GTLD programme on behalf of all interested stakeholders, world wide. (Except, perhaps the ICANN staff). Which is why under point 2.4 of the 7 June paper, we have the case for preventive ('a priori') rights, rather than curative ('ex-post') rights. Regards CW El 13 de junio de 2018 a las 8:09 Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> escribió: Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (13 June). These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted on the wiki. See also the slides posted on the wiki above, as well as the Working Document. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items: Action Items: -- WT5 members should review and comment on the collaborative working document (google document, and attached). -- Staff will ask on the list who might be traveling during next week’s meeting (1400 UTC, 20 June). Notes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Review: No SOI updates 2. Capital City Names -- Coming back to this so we can see where we stand. -- In 2012 they were restricted because they required a letter of support or non-objection. -- Some downsides to how that worked because sometimes it was hard to find the authority. -- Careful to not talk about "cities" because the notion of cities brings in how big, how small, what are we going to do with it, etc. -- Viewing capital cities as unique and exceptional could see that as a category that should remain as it was. -- The WT found some convergence on the idea of not abandoning the current treatment of Capital Cities”. 3. Non-Capital Cities -- Diverging opinions: Some would say no controls and some would say additional controls over what was in 2012. -- Some have suggested a quantitative measure around the size of population. -- Broader than just capital city name, so possibility to match a generic or branded term. -- Looking for ideas of how to navigate the different opinions and how to improve the next application round. -- If we want to reach a solution for everyone for city names we should try to look into a requirement that would help meet all the different interests at stake. -- Monitoring is not workable for all authorities. -- Need guidance of what is or what is not a city. -- Need guidance on how to treat intended use, etc. -- Try to define the requirements and see if there is a package that would cover everything. -- Let's see if we can make a distinction between pre-emptive conditions going into a process which discounts potential applications/applicants and then conditions in an evaluation process. I don't think any one is arguing for open slather. I think we're looking for clarity in an open process and then sensible measures to evaluate applications. -- On cities I feel we could work on parameters or requirements that would serve to meet all the different interests at stake, e.g. having clarity/predictability on what is a city, on the need of prior/early contact between all interested parties, possible means of resolving "conflicts", etc. -- How should we take into account that many cities have been out there for much longer than brands and quite some brand names derived from a city name (rather than the opposite)? --W hy is monitoring not possible for public entities, yet expected for everyone else? -- Look at the issues where you have an applicant that is related to the city as a city, and another that wants to use it for purposes not related to the city as a city. Contrast that to an applicant who wants to use it for unrelated geographic reasons, and then one not related to the city authority. -- Public interest commitment -- no applying to use it for a geographic use, so wouldn't need the letter of non-objection, but then used it for a geographic purpose, that would be against the intent. -- Divide the analysis into three parts 1) control and compliance; 2) objection and contention process -- objection to an applicant and contention sets; 3) control in providing potential applicants about the types of names and the warnings, that would go into an evaluation process. -- It may mean that we need to look at contractual restrictions to address concerns. -- There are different areas of control that can be applied. -- Part of a solution could be to restore the different interests in a way that is agreeable to everyone, but first acknowledge that there are different interest at stake. -- Then define the parameters for the requirements for each interest group. -- The purpose of the process flow was to look at the different areas of processing and note that there are different ways to solve issues. -- Different ways to protect are not mutually exclusive. -- Documents current protections, but doesn't document those that could match a geographic term but is applied for in a geographic way -- even where that intent wasn't stated. -- Think about how to deal with time frame A, B, and C. Identity who are the actors impacted in each of those time frames. Each of these are very different. Here are the three parts again...A) application B) evaluation C) compliance...we could do a little flow chart on this and we will rapidly see where we have agreement... -- Look at something different from the process flow in 2012 -- come up with something for the next call where the pressure points are for particular stakeholders at particular points in time. -- In the attribution to one party of a unique resource the key is at the start of the process (requirements) - later phases (objections/control) are just curative measures, which only will be helpful if the requirements have made sure that all interested parties have had a fair say in the requirements phase. -- Look at the different parts of the process in the process flow and build agreement in the Work Track -- such as basis of protection and how it applies to different terms, which require support or non-objections, challenge mechanisms, etc. 4. ICANN62 Planning: -- Check the schedule online. There is remote participation. -- Planning the activities for each session. 5. AOB: Staff will send an email to the list to see who might be traveling next week. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Good points! In addition there has been mention to beef-up help by GAC and/or GAC in identifying the relevant public authorities, to include deadlines for issuing the letter of non-objection, for establishing mediation and conciliation mechanisms if the local authorities were not responsive, etc. That would be a constructive way forward… Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Juni 2018 08:37 An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 13 June 2018 Dear Liz, in my opinion it is our task as working group to enhance your described situation about Phase A as this caused apparently issues in the last round: “In Phase A, my sense is that it is an applicant’s job to be really thorough in its risk management and engagement strategy which may include speaking to public authority representatives.” A desireable outcome of our work would be to increase the predictability and transparency of the application process – both for applicants and the ICANN community. So why should we keep what it is in the AGB 2012 and not consider means which help to reduce issues and enhance the process? Proposals by different WT members which have been made in this context included + geo database to check whether the intended applied-for name equates a geoName + geo Advisory panel + include check if the intended applied-for name equates a geoName Kind regards Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Liz Williams Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Juni 2018 01:18 An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 13 June 2018 Hello everyone I have a slightly different take on who has responsibility for monitoring applications for new TLDs. Governments and public authorities monitor things all the time…that is their job in everything from fishing quota compliance to handing out car registrations. If we argue that governments have national public policy responsibilities (which I believe that they do) then it is also a “responsibility” to take notice of things like a new TLD process which happens very infrequently. We should be confident that with the ever-growing GAC membership, we have a set of stakeholders who are paying attention to the expansion of the domain name system as a platform for economic growth (amongst many other things) for their citizens. And if we were to extend slightly the conversation we had yesterday, we can easily identify where “focus” could come in a new TLD process. I spoke about Phase A (application), Phase B (evaluation) and Phase C (compliance). If governments are also applicants then they are involved in all three phases (and we already have examples of this precise case). If a national government is interested in Phase B as an objector which is entirely possible, then we should have obvious mechanisms for any objector to express their objection and have it handled fairly and appropriately. In Phase A, my sense is that it is an applicant’s job to be really thorough in its risk management and engagement strategy which may include speaking to public authority representatives. This situation applies for all kinds of applications…not just for labels which could be perceived as representing some geographic element. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au> Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. On 14 Jun 2018, at 1:46 am, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Julie Hedlund and WT5 colleagues: Thankyou for these notes. 1. Regarding protection of Geo-Names, please refer to point 2.2 of the paper dated 7 June, which I read into the record of the meeting. 2. > Why is monitoring not possible for public entities, yet expected for everyone else? 2.1 It is not expected for 'everyone else'. I believe that it is mainly the trademark industry who finance professional monitoring. Their reaction against GDPR suggests that in the past their monitoring has been conducted without respect for privacy laws, notably through WhoIs. 2.2 There is no comparable, financed, legal industry that could monitor the new GTLD programme on behalf of all interested stakeholders, world wide. (Except, perhaps the ICANN staff). Which is why under point 2.4 of the 7 June paper, we have the case for preventive ('a priori') rights, rather than curative ('ex-post') rights. Regards CW El 13 de junio de 2018 a las 8:09 Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> escribió: Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (13 June). These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted on the wiki. See also the slides posted on the wiki above, as well as the Working Document. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items: Action Items: -- WT5 members should review and comment on the collaborative working document (google document, and attached). -- Staff will ask on the list who might be traveling during next week’s meeting (1400 UTC, 20 June). Notes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Review: No SOI updates 2. Capital City Names -- Coming back to this so we can see where we stand. -- In 2012 they were restricted because they required a letter of support or non-objection. -- Some downsides to how that worked because sometimes it was hard to find the authority. -- Careful to not talk about "cities" because the notion of cities brings in how big, how small, what are we going to do with it, etc. -- Viewing capital cities as unique and exceptional could see that as a category that should remain as it was. -- The WT found some convergence on the idea of not abandoning the current treatment of Capital Cities”. 3. Non-Capital Cities -- Diverging opinions: Some would say no controls and some would say additional controls over what was in 2012. -- Some have suggested a quantitative measure around the size of population. -- Broader than just capital city name, so possibility to match a generic or branded term. -- Looking for ideas of how to navigate the different opinions and how to improve the next application round. -- If we want to reach a solution for everyone for city names we should try to look into a requirement that would help meet all the different interests at stake. -- Monitoring is not workable for all authorities. -- Need guidance of what is or what is not a city. -- Need guidance on how to treat intended use, etc. -- Try to define the requirements and see if there is a package that would cover everything. -- Let's see if we can make a distinction between pre-emptive conditions going into a process which discounts potential applications/applicants and then conditions in an evaluation process. I don't think any one is arguing for open slather. I think we're looking for clarity in an open process and then sensible measures to evaluate applications. -- On cities I feel we could work on parameters or requirements that would serve to meet all the different interests at stake, e.g. having clarity/predictability on what is a city, on the need of prior/early contact between all interested parties, possible means of resolving "conflicts", etc. -- How should we take into account that many cities have been out there for much longer than brands and quite some brand names derived from a city name (rather than the opposite)? --W hy is monitoring not possible for public entities, yet expected for everyone else? -- Look at the issues where you have an applicant that is related to the city as a city, and another that wants to use it for purposes not related to the city as a city. Contrast that to an applicant who wants to use it for unrelated geographic reasons, and then one not related to the city authority. -- Public interest commitment -- no applying to use it for a geographic use, so wouldn't need the letter of non-objection, but then used it for a geographic purpose, that would be against the intent. -- Divide the analysis into three parts 1) control and compliance; 2) objection and contention process -- objection to an applicant and contention sets; 3) control in providing potential applicants about the types of names and the warnings, that would go into an evaluation process. -- It may mean that we need to look at contractual restrictions to address concerns. -- There are different areas of control that can be applied. -- Part of a solution could be to restore the different interests in a way that is agreeable to everyone, but first acknowledge that there are different interest at stake. -- Then define the parameters for the requirements for each interest group. -- The purpose of the process flow was to look at the different areas of processing and note that there are different ways to solve issues. -- Different ways to protect are not mutually exclusive. -- Documents current protections, but doesn't document those that could match a geographic term but is applied for in a geographic way -- even where that intent wasn't stated. -- Think about how to deal with time frame A, B, and C. Identity who are the actors impacted in each of those time frames. Each of these are very different. Here are the three parts again...A) application B) evaluation C) compliance...we could do a little flow chart on this and we will rapidly see where we have agreement... -- Look at something different from the process flow in 2012 -- come up with something for the next call where the pressure points are for particular stakeholders at particular points in time. -- In the attribution to one party of a unique resource the key is at the start of the process (requirements) - later phases (objections/control) are just curative measures, which only will be helpful if the requirements have made sure that all interested parties have had a fair say in the requirements phase. -- Look at the different parts of the process in the process flow and build agreement in the Work Track -- such as basis of protection and how it applies to different terms, which require support or non-objections, challenge mechanisms, etc. 4. ICANN62 Planning: -- Check the schedule online. There is remote participation. -- Planning the activities for each session. 5. AOB: Staff will send an email to the list to see who might be traveling next week. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Hi Katrin and Liz To me this is a logical process by which to approach Phase A with useful mechanisms to provide checkpoints along the way, that as you say enhance transparency and predictability. Its a starting point and makes sense for moving forward. Maureen On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 8:37 PM, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH < ohlmer@dotzon.com> wrote:
Dear Liz,
in my opinion it is our task as working group to enhance your described situation about Phase A as this caused apparently issues in the last round:
“In Phase A, my sense is that it is an applicant’s job to be really thorough in its risk management and engagement strategy which *may *include speaking to public authority representatives.”
A desireable outcome of our work would be to increase the predictability and transparency of the application process – both for applicants and the ICANN community. So why should we keep what it is in the AGB 2012 and not consider means which help to reduce issues and enhance the process? Proposals by different WT members which have been made in this context included
+ geo database to check whether the intended applied-for name equates a geoName
+ geo Advisory panel
+ include check if the intended applied-for name equates a geoName
Kind regards
Katrin
DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting www.dotzon.consulting
DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin
*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Liz Williams *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 14. Juni 2018 01:18 *An:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 13 June 2018
Hello everyone
I have a slightly different take on who has responsibility for monitoring applications for new TLDs. Governments and public authorities monitor things all the time…that is their job in everything from fishing quota compliance to handing out car registrations. If we argue that governments have national public policy responsibilities (which I believe that they do) then it is also a “responsibility” to take notice of things like a new TLD process which happens very infrequently. We should be confident that with the ever-growing GAC membership, we have a set of stakeholders who are paying attention to the expansion of the domain name system as a platform for economic growth (amongst many other things) for their citizens.
And if we were to extend slightly the conversation we had yesterday, we can easily identify where “focus” could come in a new TLD process. I spoke about Phase A (application), Phase B (evaluation) and Phase C (compliance). If governments are also applicants then they are involved in all three phases (and we already have examples of this precise case). If a national government is interested in Phase B as an objector which is entirely possible, then we should have obvious mechanisms for any objector to express their objection and have it handled fairly and appropriately. In Phase A, my sense is that it is an applicant’s job to be really thorough in its risk management and engagement strategy which *may *include speaking to public authority representatives.
This situation applies for all kinds of applications…not just for labels which could be perceived as representing some geographic element.
Liz
…. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au www.auda.org.au
Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
On 14 Jun 2018, at 1:46 am, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Dear Julie Hedlund and WT5 colleagues:
Thankyou for these notes.
1. Regarding protection of Geo-Names, please refer to point 2.2 of the paper dated 7 June, which I read into the record of the meeting.
2. > Why is monitoring not possible for public entities, yet expected for everyone else?
2.1 It is not expected for 'everyone else'. I believe that it is mainly the trademark industry who finance professional monitoring. Their reaction against GDPR suggests that in the past their monitoring has been conducted without respect for privacy laws, notably through WhoIs.
2.2 There is no comparable, financed, legal industry that could monitor the new GTLD programme on behalf of all interested stakeholders, world wide. (Except, perhaps the ICANN staff). Which is why under point 2.4 of the 7 June paper, we have the case for preventive ('a priori') rights, rather than curative ('ex-post') rights.
Regards
CW
El 13 de junio de 2018 a las 8:09 Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> escribió:
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (13 June). *These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted on the wiki.*
See also the slides posted on the wiki above, as well as the Working Document.
Kind regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------
*Notes/Action Items:*
*Action Items:*
-- WT5 members should review and comment on the collaborative working document (google document, and attached).
-- Staff will ask on the list who might be traveling during next week’s meeting (1400 UTC, 20 June).
*Notes:*
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Review: No SOI updates
2. Capital City Names
-- Coming back to this so we can see where we stand.
-- In 2012 they were restricted because they required a letter of support or non-objection.
-- Some downsides to how that worked because sometimes it was hard to find the authority.
-- Careful to not talk about "cities" because the notion of cities brings in how big, how small, what are we going to do with it, etc.
-- Viewing capital cities as unique and exceptional could see that as a category that should remain as it was.
-- The WT found some convergence on the idea of not abandoning the current treatment of Capital Cities”.
3. Non-Capital Cities
-- Diverging opinions: Some would say no controls and some would say additional controls over what was in 2012.
-- Some have suggested a quantitative measure around the size of population.
-- Broader than just capital city name, so possibility to match a generic or branded term.
-- Looking for ideas of how to navigate the different opinions and how to improve the next application round.
-- If we want to reach a solution for everyone for city names we should try to look into a requirement that would help meet all the different interests at stake.
-- Monitoring is not workable for all authorities.
-- Need guidance of what is or what is not a city.
-- Need guidance on how to treat intended use, etc.
-- Try to define the requirements and see if there is a package that would cover everything.
-- Let's see if we can make a distinction between pre-emptive conditions going into a process which discounts potential applications/applicants and then conditions in an evaluation process. I don't think any one is arguing for open slather. I think we're looking for clarity in an open process and then sensible measures to evaluate applications.
-- On cities I feel we could work on parameters or requirements that would serve to meet all the different interests at stake, e.g. having clarity/predictability on what is a city, on the need of prior/early contact between all interested parties, possible means of resolving "conflicts", etc.
-- How should we take into account that many cities have been out there for much longer than brands and quite some brand names derived from a city name (rather than the opposite)?
--W hy is monitoring not possible for public entities, yet expected for everyone else?
-- Look at the issues where you have an applicant that is related to the city as a city, and another that wants to use it for purposes not related to the city as a city. Contrast that to an applicant who wants to use it for unrelated geographic reasons, and then one not related to the city authority.
-- Public interest commitment -- no applying to use it for a geographic use, so wouldn't need the letter of non-objection, but then used it for a geographic purpose, that would be against the intent.
-- Divide the analysis into three parts 1) control and compliance; 2) objection and contention process -- objection to an applicant and contention sets; 3) control in providing potential applicants about the types of names and the warnings, that would go into an evaluation process.
-- It may mean that we need to look at contractual restrictions to address concerns.
-- There are different areas of control that can be applied.
-- Part of a solution could be to restore the different interests in a way that is agreeable to everyone, but first acknowledge that there are different interest at stake.
-- Then define the parameters for the requirements for each interest group.
-- The purpose of the process flow was to look at the different areas of processing and note that there are different ways to solve issues.
-- Different ways to protect are not mutually exclusive.
-- Documents current protections, but doesn't document those that could match a geographic term but is applied for in a geographic way -- even where that intent wasn't stated.
-- Think about how to deal with time frame A, B, and C. Identity who are the actors impacted in each of those time frames. Each of these are very different. Here are the three parts again...A) application B) evaluation C) compliance...we could do a little flow chart on this and we will rapidly see where we have agreement...
-- Look at something different from the process flow in 2012 -- come up with something for the next call where the pressure points are for particular stakeholders at particular points in time.
-- In the attribution to one party of a unique resource the key is at the start of the process (requirements) - later phases (objections/control) are just curative measures, which only will be helpful if the requirements have made sure that all interested parties have had a fair say in the requirements phase.
-- Look at the different parts of the process in the process flow and build agreement in the Work Track -- such as basis of protection and how it applies to different terms, which require support or non-objections, challenge mechanisms, etc.
4. ICANN62 Planning:
-- Check the schedule online. There is remote participation.
-- Planning the activities for each session.
5. AOB: Staff will send an email to the list to see who might be traveling next week.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
participants (9)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Arasteh -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Julie Hedlund -
Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH -
lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson -
Liz Williams -
Maureen Hilyard -
Mazzone, Giacomo