Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (11 July). 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 attached slides as well as the Working Document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRU.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items: Action Items: Change the calls to 90 minutes every other week. WT5 members should review and comment on the collaborative working document Notes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates -- No SOI updates -- Change calls to 90 minutes every other week. 2. Recap of ICANN62 sessions Slide 5, Session 1 Feedback Some of the Session 1 feedback received: -- Support for universal protections – based on local or national laws, UN lists. Should respect their historical, sometimes unique, identifiers. -- Against universal protections – no universal definition of city. No basis for this level of protections. Local laws only applicable in jurisdiction. -- Relevant govt/public authorities – could depend on which city applicant is targeting. Or may be dependent upon a certain list of non-capital city names. Slide 6, Session 1 Feedback, Cont. -- Definitive list of protected terms - support for a list, but unclear if there is such a list. Some suggestions of using UN lists, population, airport locations.-- Should usage matter – some support for existing rules, where govt/public authority approval needed only when used as a city name. If approval is needed regardless of usage, difficult to determine what entity can grant approval (e.g., all cities with the same name?). Slide 7, Session 2 Feedback -- Discussed principles as they relate to non-capital city names: Purpose: principles may be used as a way to evaluate potential proposed solutions and help the group focus on high-level goals.-- Sought additional proposals “in the middle” between extremes. Some of the session 2 feedback: -- Suggestion that rather than meeting in the middle, it could be about improving the parts of the existing process that did not work as well as they could have.-- General support for the principles, with the addition of “simplicity”-- How do we create incentives for parties to work together? Slide 8: Results of the Sessions: -- Interactive discussions validating many of the key points and positions raised in the Work Track but from new participants.-- Additional new points and ideas raised; Some common ground identified on principles. -- Input from the Cross-Community sessions is included in the working document. Discussion: -- Unless someone has a view that presents a middle ground, it is not useful to comment if the comment does not present anything new. -- Question: To what use will the working document ultimately be put? Is it the beginnings of an official document of the working group or is it only some kind of brainstorming document? Thanks Answer: The document is intended to capture ideas, arguments, and proposals to support future discussion and eventually assist in the development of the WT's outputs. Many ideas have been raised, and it attempts to help ensure that no threads of the conversation are lost. -- Is it time for us to start identifying where we have general agreement, and where we have divergence. -- To help find common ground: We spend a lot of time going back and forth on the type of names, lists, uses -- but very little time on the type of protection or way that the issue can be raised. We would be far better served to look at challenge-type protections, rather than preventive/prescriptive-type protections. That would allow each challenge to be evaluated on its merit. 3. Non-Capital City Names Slide 10: Principles and Next Steps Reminder: Why focus on Principles? -- If we agree on the principles, we can test our potential changes against them to make sure we are on the right track. During the Cross-Community Sessions, some support was expressed for several principles, detailed on the following slides. Does the Work Track still feel that these are valid? Summary of proposed principles: -- Allow for new non-capital city gTLDs -- Increase predictability for all parties-- Reducing the reasons and likelihood for conflict within the process, as well as after delegation -- Simplicity – simple to understand, follow, and implement What other principles should be considered? Would it be helpful to look at some of the solutions proposed in the Work Track for non-capital city names in light of these principles? Discussion: -- Add predictability of time frames. -- We should try to isolate what we think were the problems in the last round that we are trying to address. -- Question: What does "allow for new non-capital city gTLDs" mean? Does it mean should govts be allowed to exclusively own words referring to cities? A clarification of meaning would be helpful. Answer: Noting that a principle could be that non-capital city gTLDs should be allowed. Answer: Essentially, the principle is to allow these strings to be delegated, as opposed, for example, to being reserved. -- We could come up with 10 principles and then look at ideal implementation. So, principles at the top and then ideal implementation. Then we map each of our issues against the ideal implementation. So -- it looks like Part A: Principles; Part B: Policy (pretty empty just yet) and Part C: Ideal Implementation...we then think about how to match our principles with ideal implementation in each case and then the policy will fall from it...then we ditch the Implementation text and put that somewhere in a Best Practices Guideline...just thinking about how to structure a practical document. -- Change the principle: to allow for new gTLDs, whether that is a non-capital city, or a brand, or a generic, or professional restricted. The principle should be in favor of application and delegation. -- The third principle regarding "conflict" assumes that there is agreement a "conflict" exists but I understand there are divergent views as to whether there is or isn't a conflict. -- Keep on focusing on problems that require solutions. -- As we point out problems from the last round, we should be careful to distinguish between problems caused by someone being delegated a non-capital city name vs. problems that were caused by the flawed ICANN objection process itself. We don't want to fix a problem caused by the ICANN process by doubling down on the problem and just doing even more of the same that caused the problems in the first place. -- When there are competing legitimate interests, it is appropriate that those interests be given an opportunity to apply, so assuming "reducing conflict" is not necessarily a bad thing, because it is a process that allows for competing legitimate interests to be resolved fairly. -- In some countries there are laws that are changing quickly -- could one say that they are changing because of difficulties that people have encountered? Has there been any record of any continuous systematic rejection for all geographic names? Look at where are the bottlenecks and find solutions for that -- we can't find solutions for everything. -- What is a possible norm that could take into account the competing interests? -- Regarding bottlenecks or other problems encountered, Greg started a list of cases: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jPa4jdBgo8P2aC6G4pzLoFTfyocIeon8qVD7... -- Continue to add ideas to the Working Document. -- Example of non-capital city place name: Bingo is an example of a TLD from the first round that also corresponds to a non-capital city names. 15 places it turns out. See https://us.geotargit.com/called.php?qcity=Bingo -- What interest is being served by letters of non-objection for Bingo from the non-capital cities? They may be interested and also confusion of the usage of the same name. -- Confusion cannot be easily assumed. 4. Potential Geographic Terms Not Included in the 2012 AGB Slide 12: Principles -- Terms not in the 2012 AGB We have previously discussed potential categories of strings not included in the Applicant Guidebook that may be considered geographic names. Do the principles identified for non-capital city names also apply to potential solutions for non-AGB terms? -- Allow for new gTLDs -- Predictability -- Reducing the reasons for conflict -- Simplicity If yes, why? If no, what principles might we apply? Discussion: -- Suggest we start the process around the remedies or tools -- do it backwards. Helpful to try a different approach. 5. AOB: None
Hi group, during the last call and in its chat were some serious conflations of facts. Let me explain the fact base on the floated examples of “.bingo”, “.paris” and I am adding “.clearwater” (“Clearwater” being a placeholder for any “city” like “Clearwater” in Florida which has 100k+ inhabitants, is probably know by every single American and every single German, might be confused with “unspoiled water” – but Google finds obviously ONLY city related content.) We had a new gTLD round. It was in 2012 – applicants had to follow the rules of the application guidelines for it. That’s our base. The rules are quite specific and it would be nice if group members read them at least ONCE (the chat contributions made it painful clear that not everybody here has read the city related new gTLD policies of the 2012 AGB). * BINGO: If in 2012 some brand or generic term applicant had applied for .bingo and there would be a non-capital city “Bingo”; that city would NOT have to be asked for Government support if .bingo was declared as non-geo use application! The notion that every city “Bingo” had to be asked for permission is ridiculous and bares any fact basis. * .paris: Any applicant for any city or brand “PARIS” would have been required to get the approval of the French Capital. To my understanding if the geo-use was intended then from all other places that qualify as “city” as well! We might look into the formulation “relevant Government” and “associated with the city name”: Paris Texas has 25k people, is a city, and the city’s name is “Texas”. To my understanding any application that declares geo-use (even if by the French capital) they would have had to acquire Government support from Paris, TX as well (please discuss, please correct me if you identify evidence to the contrary). I do not see that the French capital was prioritized over Paris, TX. * .clearwater: In the call somebody questioned why “The City” (some city) had any fundamental issues if a gTLD like “.clearwater” (which I use as a fictional example for any small city) was applied for by e.g. a beverage company with a brand “CLEAR WATER”. I am not going to speak on behalf of cites (as in “government bodies”): maybe some GAC member could do that! I am caring about the CONSTITUENTS in that city! The businesses. The People! The organizations. It is THOSE who have a potentially terrible loss: YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME. It can’t be that the marketing desire of a beverage brand tops the freedom of expression and identity of tens or worse HUNDREDS of thousands of citizens! So all in all: Brands and generic applicants faced more or less ZERO “resistance” in the 2012 AGB – as they could always claim the non-geo use. What is being discussed currently (and yes for full disclosure: I am the initiator of that idea): * In the 2012 AGB we already eliminated the non-geo use for capitals and 3166 Alpha-2 regions! * BIG cities are as important – and too many people and stakeholders would suffer from city name grabbing on top-level in the DNS * The solution is to elevate at least sizeable cities to the protection level of capital cities! * A cut-off measure has to be defined – e.g. population size Thanks, Alexander Schubert From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 12:10 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018 Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (11 July). 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 attached slides as well as the Working Document at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRU...> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRU.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Alex Sounds like a pretty good way forward. Perhaps as you say population size should also be based on the country applying as some are also islands and may not be having a large population like New York, Paris and loads of others. kris
On Jul 20, 2018, at 21:22, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Hi group,
during the last call and in its chat were some serious conflations of facts. Let me explain the fact base on the floated examples of “.bingo”, “.paris” and I am adding “.clearwater” (“Clearwater” being a placeholder for any “city” like “Clearwater” in Florida which has 100k+ inhabitants, is probably know by every single American and every single German, might be confused with “unspoiled water” – but Google finds obviously ONLY city related content.)
We had a new gTLD round. It was in 2012 – applicants had to follow the rules of the application guidelines for it. That’s our base. The rules are quite specific and it would be nice if group members read them at least ONCE (the chat contributions made it painful clear that not everybody here has read the city related new gTLD policies of the 2012 AGB).
· BINGO: If in 2012 some brand or generic term applicant had applied for .bingo and there would be a non-capital city “Bingo”; that city would NOT have to be asked for Government support if .bingo was declared as non-geo use application! The notion that every city “Bingo” had to be asked for permission is ridiculous and bares any fact basis. · .paris: Any applicant for any city or brand “PARIS” would have been required to get the approval of the French Capital. To my understanding if the geo-use was intended then from all other places that qualify as “city” as well! We might look into the formulation “relevant Government” and “associated with the city name”: Paris Texas has 25k people, is a city, and the city’s name is “Texas”. To my understanding any application that declares geo-use (even if by the French capital) they would have had to acquire Government support from Paris, TX as well (please discuss, please correct me if you identify evidence to the contrary). I do not see that the French capital was prioritized over Paris, TX. · .clearwater: In the call somebody questioned why “The City” (some city) had any fundamental issues if a gTLD like “.clearwater” (which I use as a fictional example for any small city) was applied for by e.g. a beverage company with a brand “CLEAR WATER”. I am not going to speak on behalf of cites (as in “government bodies”): maybe some GAC member could do that! I am caring about the CONSTITUENTS in that city! The businesses. The People! The organizations. It is THOSE who have a potentially terrible loss: YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME. It can’t be that the marketing desire of a beverage brand tops the freedom of expression and identity of tens or worse HUNDREDS of thousands of citizens!
So all in all: Brands and generic applicants faced more or less ZERO “resistance” in the 2012 AGB – as they could always claim the non-geo use. What is being discussed currently (and yes for full disclosure: I am the initiator of that idea): · In the 2012 AGB we already eliminated the non-geo use for capitals and 3166 Alpha-2 regions! · BIG cities are as important – and too many people and stakeholders would suffer from city name grabbing on top-level in the DNS · The solution is to elevate at least sizeable cities to the protection level of capital cities! · A cut-off measure has to be defined – e.g. population size
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 12:10 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (11 July). 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 attached slides as well as the Working Document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRU... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRU...>.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
I agree that the names of large cities should be protected in the same way as capital cities are protected and I like the idea of creating a pro-rated system for important cities in smaller countries. I would like to get on with the specifics of this idea -- where should the cut off be, can we use the work of other organizations (U.N.?) to set baselines, etc. We had some of those discussions early on, but now I think we are stalled. My question is: is there enough support in this group to move ahead on this and how will we know? Marita On 7/20/2018 1:44 PM, Kris Seeburn wrote:
Alex
Sounds like a pretty good way forward. Perhaps as you say population size should also be based on the country applying as some are also islands and may not be having a large population like New York, Paris and loads of others.
kris
On Jul 20, 2018, at 21:22, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Hi group,
during the last call and in its chat were some serious conflations of facts. Let me explain the fact base on the floated examples of “.bingo”, “.paris” and I am adding “.clearwater” (“Clearwater” being a placeholder for any “city” like “Clearwater” in Florida which has 100k+ inhabitants, is probably know by every single American and every single German, might be confused with “unspoiled water” – but Google finds obviously ONLY city related content.)
We had a new gTLD round. It was in 2012 – applicants had to follow the rules of the application guidelines for it. That’s our base. The rules are quite specific and it would be nice if group members read them at least ONCE (the chat contributions made it painful clear that not everybody here has read the city related new gTLD policies of the 2012 AGB).
·BINGO: If in 2012 some brand or generic term applicant had applied for .bingo and there would be a non-capital city “Bingo”; that city would NOT have to be asked for Government support if .bingo was declared as non-geo use application! The notion that every city “Bingo” had to be asked for permission is ridiculous and bares any fact basis. ·.paris: Any applicant for any city or brand “PARIS” would have been required to get the approval of the French Capital. To my understanding if the geo-use was intended then from all other places that qualify as “city” as well! We might look into the formulation “relevant Government” and “associated with the city name”: Paris Texas has 25k people, is a city, and the city’s name is “Texas”. To my understanding any application that declares geo-use (even if by the French capital) they would have had to acquire Government support from Paris, TX as well (please discuss, please correct me if you identify evidence to the contrary). I do not see that the French capital was prioritized over Paris, TX. ·.clearwater: In the call somebody questioned why “The City” (some city) had any fundamental issues if a gTLD like “.clearwater” (which I use as a fictional example for any small city) was applied for by e.g. a beverage company with a brand “CLEAR WATER”. I am not going to speak on behalf of cites (as in “government bodies”): maybe some GAC member could do that! I am caring about the CONSTITUENTS in that city! The businesses. The People! The organizations. It is THOSE who have a potentially terrible loss: YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME. It can’t be that the marketing desire of a beverage brand tops the freedom of expression and identity of tens or worse HUNDREDS of thousands of citizens! So all in all: Brands and generic applicants faced more or less ZERO “resistance” in the 2012 AGB – as they could always claim the non-geo use. What is being discussed currently (and yes for full disclosure: I am the initiator of that idea): ·In the 2012 AGB we already eliminated the non-geo use for capitals and 3166 Alpha-2 regions! ·BIG cities are as important – and too many people and stakeholders would suffer from city name grabbing on top-level in the DNS ·The solution is to elevate at least sizeable cities to the protection level of capital cities! ·A cut-off measure has to be defined – e.g. population size Thanks, Alexander Schubert
*From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org]*On Behalf Of*Julie Hedlund *Sent:*Thursday, July 12, 2018 12:10 AM *To:*gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:*[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018 Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (11 July). /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 attached slides as well as the Working Document at:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRU.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director _______________________________________________ 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
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
+1 seems a very good argument to me On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> wrote:
Alex
Sounds like a pretty good way forward. Perhaps as you say population size should also be based on the country applying as some are also islands and may not be having a large population like New York, Paris and loads of others.
kris
On Jul 20, 2018, at 21:22, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi group,
during the last call and in its chat were some serious conflations of facts. Let me explain the fact base on the floated examples of “.bingo”, “.paris” and I am adding “.clearwater” (“Clearwater” being a placeholder for any “city” like “Clearwater” in Florida which has 100k+ inhabitants, is probably know by every single American and every single German, might be confused with “unspoiled water” – but Google finds obviously ONLY city related content.)
We had a new gTLD round. It was in 2012 – applicants had to follow the rules of the application guidelines for it. That’s our base. The rules are quite specific and it would be nice if group members read them at least ONCE (the chat contributions made it painful clear that not everybody here has read the city related new gTLD policies of the 2012 AGB).
· BINGO: If in 2012 some brand or generic term applicant had applied for .bingo and there would be a non-capital city “Bingo”; that city would NOT have to be asked for Government support if .bingo was declared as non-geo use application! The notion that every city “Bingo” had to be asked for permission is ridiculous and bares any fact basis. · .paris: Any applicant for any city or brand “PARIS” would have been required to get the approval of the French Capital. To my understanding if the geo-use was intended then from all other places that qualify as “city” as well! We might look into the formulation “relevant Government” and “associated with the city name”: Paris Texas has 25k people, is a city, and the city’s name is “Texas”. To my understanding any application that declares geo-use (even if by the French capital) they would have had to acquire Government support from Paris, TX as well (please discuss, please correct me if you identify evidence to the contrary). I do not see that the French capital was prioritized over Paris, TX. · .clearwater: In the call somebody questioned why “The City” (some city) had any fundamental issues if a gTLD like “.clearwater” (which I use as a fictional example for any small city) was applied for by e.g. a beverage company with a brand “CLEAR WATER”. I am not going to speak on behalf of cites (as in “government bodies”): maybe some GAC member could do that! I am caring about the CONSTITUENTS in that city! The businesses. The People! The organizations. It is THOSE who have a potentially terrible loss: YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME. It can’t be that the marketing desire of a beverage brand tops the freedom of expression and identity of tens or worse HUNDREDS of thousands of citizens!
So all in all: Brands and generic applicants faced more or less ZERO “resistance” in the 2012 AGB – as they could always claim the non-geo use. What is being discussed currently (and yes for full disclosure: I am the initiator of that idea): · In the 2012 AGB we already eliminated the non-geo use for capitals and 3166 Alpha-2 regions! · BIG cities are as important – and too many people and stakeholders would suffer from city name grabbing on top-level in the DNS · The solution is to elevate at least sizeable cities to the protection level of capital cities! · A cut-off measure has to be defined – e.g. population size
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund *Sent:* Thursday, July 12, 2018 12:10 AM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (11 July). *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 attached slides as well as the Working Document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJ sKyWX8WZXRUXAo/edit.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
I was rethinking this and a way forward could be at this point taking capitals/cities into a second round. We still need to think business models as well. So at this point in time we could move Geonames to the three letter ISO and also country names in full as set out in ISO / UN recognition as well. The population size could be very well thought of in a second phase of this workings. The longer we take to get to the other bits we may be stalling the whole process as well.So my take is get the first of these moving ahead. I was stating islands as i can take Seychelles has an overall population as a country of around 95,000 so imagine it’s capital “VICTORIA” or it’s other main Hub “MAHE”. There are also other countries or Islands we may have to think and cater for. So my suggestion is to take into consideration the population size for sure but perhaps add a second variable which would be the country itself. Big countries in general may understand that you cannot just use or take names of capitals or other cities just like that without Govt approval. But the issue remains the awareness that needs to go down to ensure the required understanding. So perhaps two variables should be (1) population (2) country - legitimacy — perhaps that may go better with GAC as well as many others. My two cents.
On Jul 20, 2018, at 22:56, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote:
+1 seems a very good argument to me
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com>> wrote: Alex
Sounds like a pretty good way forward. Perhaps as you say population size should also be based on the country applying as some are also islands and may not be having a large population like New York, Paris and loads of others.
kris
On Jul 20, 2018, at 21:22, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Hi group,
during the last call and in its chat were some serious conflations of facts. Let me explain the fact base on the floated examples of “.bingo”, “.paris” and I am adding “.clearwater” (“Clearwater” being a placeholder for any “city” like “Clearwater” in Florida which has 100k+ inhabitants, is probably know by every single American and every single German, might be confused with “unspoiled water” – but Google finds obviously ONLY city related content.)
We had a new gTLD round. It was in 2012 – applicants had to follow the rules of the application guidelines for it. That’s our base. The rules are quite specific and it would be nice if group members read them at least ONCE (the chat contributions made it painful clear that not everybody here has read the city related new gTLD policies of the 2012 AGB).
· BINGO: If in 2012 some brand or generic term applicant had applied for .bingo and there would be a non-capital city “Bingo”; that city would NOT have to be asked for Government support if .bingo was declared as non-geo use application! The notion that every city “Bingo” had to be asked for permission is ridiculous and bares any fact basis. · .paris: Any applicant for any city or brand “PARIS” would have been required to get the approval of the French Capital. To my understanding if the geo-use was intended then from all other places that qualify as “city” as well! We might look into the formulation “relevant Government” and “associated with the city name”: Paris Texas has 25k people, is a city, and the city’s name is “Texas”. To my understanding any application that declares geo-use (even if by the French capital) they would have had to acquire Government support from Paris, TX as well (please discuss, please correct me if you identify evidence to the contrary). I do not see that the French capital was prioritized over Paris, TX. · .clearwater: In the call somebody questioned why “The City” (some city) had any fundamental issues if a gTLD like “.clearwater” (which I use as a fictional example for any small city) was applied for by e.g. a beverage company with a brand “CLEAR WATER”. I am not going to speak on behalf of cites (as in “government bodies”): maybe some GAC member could do that! I am caring about the CONSTITUENTS in that city! The businesses. The People! The organizations. It is THOSE who have a potentially terrible loss: YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME. It can’t be that the marketing desire of a beverage brand tops the freedom of expression and identity of tens or worse HUNDREDS of thousands of citizens!
So all in all: Brands and generic applicants faced more or less ZERO “resistance” in the 2012 AGB – as they could always claim the non-geo use. What is being discussed currently (and yes for full disclosure: I am the initiator of that idea): · In the 2012 AGB we already eliminated the non-geo use for capitals and 3166 Alpha-2 regions! · BIG cities are as important – and too many people and stakeholders would suffer from city name grabbing on top-level in the DNS · The solution is to elevate at least sizeable cities to the protection level of capital cities! · A cut-off measure has to be defined – e.g. population size
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 12:10 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (11 July). 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 attached slides as well as the Working Document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRU... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRU...>.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
<KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
A similar argument to what Alexander suggested, Kris. On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 9:39 AM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> wrote:
I was rethinking this and a way forward could be at this point taking capitals/cities into a second round. We still need to think business models as well. So at this point in time we could move Geonames to the three letter ISO and also country names in full as set out in ISO / UN recognition as well.
The population size could be very well thought of in a second phase of this workings. The longer we take to get to the other bits we may be stalling the whole process as well.So my take is get the first of these moving ahead. I was stating islands as i can take Seychelles has an overall population as a country of around 95,000 so imagine it’s capital “VICTORIA” or it’s other main Hub “MAHE”. There are also other countries or Islands we may have to think and cater for.
So my suggestion is to take into consideration the population size for sure but perhaps add a second variable which would be the country itself. Big countries in general may understand that you cannot just use or take names of capitals or other cities just like that without Govt approval. But the issue remains the awareness that needs to go down to ensure the required understanding.
So perhaps two variables should be (1) population (2) country - legitimacy — perhaps that may go better with GAC as well as many others.
My two cents.
On Jul 20, 2018, at 22:56, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 seems a very good argument to me
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> wrote:
Alex
Sounds like a pretty good way forward. Perhaps as you say population size should also be based on the country applying as some are also islands and may not be having a large population like New York, Paris and loads of others.
kris
On Jul 20, 2018, at 21:22, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi group,
during the last call and in its chat were some serious conflations of facts. Let me explain the fact base on the floated examples of “.bingo”, “.paris” and I am adding “.clearwater” (“Clearwater” being a placeholder for any “city” like “Clearwater” in Florida which has 100k+ inhabitants, is probably know by every single American and every single German, might be confused with “unspoiled water” – but Google finds obviously ONLY city related content.)
We had a new gTLD round. It was in 2012 – applicants had to follow the rules of the application guidelines for it. That’s our base. The rules are quite specific and it would be nice if group members read them at least ONCE (the chat contributions made it painful clear that not everybody here has read the city related new gTLD policies of the 2012 AGB).
· BINGO: If in 2012 some brand or generic term applicant had applied for .bingo and there would be a non-capital city “Bingo”; that city would NOT have to be asked for Government support if .bingo was declared as non-geo use application! The notion that every city “Bingo” had to be asked for permission is ridiculous and bares any fact basis. · .paris: Any applicant for any city or brand “PARIS” would have been required to get the approval of the French Capital. To my understanding if the geo-use was intended then from all other places that qualify as “city” as well! We might look into the formulation “relevant Government” and “associated with the city name”: Paris Texas has 25k people, is a city, and the city’s name is “Texas”. To my understanding any application that declares geo-use (even if by the French capital) they would have had to acquire Government support from Paris, TX as well (please discuss, please correct me if you identify evidence to the contrary). I do not see that the French capital was prioritized over Paris, TX. · .clearwater: In the call somebody questioned why “The City” (some city) had any fundamental issues if a gTLD like “.clearwater” (which I use as a fictional example for any small city) was applied for by e.g. a beverage company with a brand “CLEAR WATER”. I am not going to speak on behalf of cites (as in “government bodies”): maybe some GAC member could do that! I am caring about the CONSTITUENTS in that city! The businesses. The People! The organizations. It is THOSE who have a potentially terrible loss: YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME. It can’t be that the marketing desire of a beverage brand tops the freedom of expression and identity of tens or worse HUNDREDS of thousands of citizens!
So all in all: Brands and generic applicants faced more or less ZERO “resistance” in the 2012 AGB – as they could always claim the non-geo use. What is being discussed currently (and yes for full disclosure: I am the initiator of that idea): · In the 2012 AGB we already eliminated the non-geo use for capitals and 3166 Alpha-2 regions! · BIG cities are as important – and too many people and stakeholders would suffer from city name grabbing on top-level in the DNS · The solution is to elevate at least sizeable cities to the protection level of capital cities! · A cut-off measure has to be defined – e.g. population size
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund *Sent:* Thursday, July 12, 2018 12:10 AM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (11 July). *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 attached slides as well as the Working Document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FH St6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRUXAo/edit.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
<KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
Yes i noted that … just ensuring that we move things forward and ensure that the small countries have their bit as well without alienating them.
On Jul 20, 2018, at 23:49, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote:
A similar argument to what Alexander suggested, Kris.
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 9:39 AM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com>> wrote: I was rethinking this and a way forward could be at this point taking capitals/cities into a second round. We still need to think business models as well. So at this point in time we could move Geonames to the three letter ISO and also country names in full as set out in ISO / UN recognition as well.
The population size could be very well thought of in a second phase of this workings. The longer we take to get to the other bits we may be stalling the whole process as well.So my take is get the first of these moving ahead. I was stating islands as i can take Seychelles has an overall population as a country of around 95,000 so imagine it’s capital “VICTORIA” or it’s other main Hub “MAHE”. There are also other countries or Islands we may have to think and cater for.
So my suggestion is to take into consideration the population size for sure but perhaps add a second variable which would be the country itself. Big countries in general may understand that you cannot just use or take names of capitals or other cities just like that without Govt approval. But the issue remains the awareness that needs to go down to ensure the required understanding.
So perhaps two variables should be (1) population (2) country - legitimacy — perhaps that may go better with GAC as well as many others.
My two cents.
On Jul 20, 2018, at 22:56, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote:
+1 seems a very good argument to me
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com>> wrote: Alex
Sounds like a pretty good way forward. Perhaps as you say population size should also be based on the country applying as some are also islands and may not be having a large population like New York, Paris and loads of others.
kris
On Jul 20, 2018, at 21:22, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Hi group,
during the last call and in its chat were some serious conflations of facts. Let me explain the fact base on the floated examples of “.bingo”, “.paris” and I am adding “.clearwater” (“Clearwater” being a placeholder for any “city” like “Clearwater” in Florida which has 100k+ inhabitants, is probably know by every single American and every single German, might be confused with “unspoiled water” – but Google finds obviously ONLY city related content.)
We had a new gTLD round. It was in 2012 – applicants had to follow the rules of the application guidelines for it. That’s our base. The rules are quite specific and it would be nice if group members read them at least ONCE (the chat contributions made it painful clear that not everybody here has read the city related new gTLD policies of the 2012 AGB).
· BINGO: If in 2012 some brand or generic term applicant had applied for .bingo and there would be a non-capital city “Bingo”; that city would NOT have to be asked for Government support if .bingo was declared as non-geo use application! The notion that every city “Bingo” had to be asked for permission is ridiculous and bares any fact basis. · .paris: Any applicant for any city or brand “PARIS” would have been required to get the approval of the French Capital. To my understanding if the geo-use was intended then from all other places that qualify as “city” as well! We might look into the formulation “relevant Government” and “associated with the city name”: Paris Texas has 25k people, is a city, and the city’s name is “Texas”. To my understanding any application that declares geo-use (even if by the French capital) they would have had to acquire Government support from Paris, TX as well (please discuss, please correct me if you identify evidence to the contrary). I do not see that the French capital was prioritized over Paris, TX. · .clearwater: In the call somebody questioned why “The City” (some city) had any fundamental issues if a gTLD like “.clearwater” (which I use as a fictional example for any small city) was applied for by e.g. a beverage company with a brand “CLEAR WATER”. I am not going to speak on behalf of cites (as in “government bodies”): maybe some GAC member could do that! I am caring about the CONSTITUENTS in that city! The businesses. The People! The organizations. It is THOSE who have a potentially terrible loss: YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME. It can’t be that the marketing desire of a beverage brand tops the freedom of expression and identity of tens or worse HUNDREDS of thousands of citizens!
So all in all: Brands and generic applicants faced more or less ZERO “resistance” in the 2012 AGB – as they could always claim the non-geo use. What is being discussed currently (and yes for full disclosure: I am the initiator of that idea): · In the 2012 AGB we already eliminated the non-geo use for capitals and 3166 Alpha-2 regions! · BIG cities are as important – and too many people and stakeholders would suffer from city name grabbing on top-level in the DNS · The solution is to elevate at least sizeable cities to the protection level of capital cities! · A cut-off measure has to be defined – e.g. population size
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 12:10 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (11 July). 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 attached slides as well as the Working Document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRU... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRU...>.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
<KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
<KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
Thanks Alexander. Just to clarify the record, I didn’t suggest in the call that .bingo had to seek approvals from all those cities in the last round. It was introduced as an example of how ridiculous this can get if we go down the slippery slope of expanding censorship in the top level any further than it has already been extended. Perhaps something was lost in the translation. Regarding Paris, there are dozens of places that bear that name (which originated in Greek mythology, by the way, and not in France). I’ve copied them at the end. Under a strict reading of the AGB from the last round, an applicant would have had to get a letter from the government of each of these places. A very silly rule. Regarding your “Clearwater” place holder, let’s swap in Toledo instead. Toledo, Spain has been around since about the time of Christ and currently has a population of 83,000. Toledo, Ohio, has been around only since 1833 but has a population of nearly 651,429, many times that of the little city in Spain. This is not even to mention the over a dozen other places named Toledo. Your suggestion that a GAC rep may speak for the people of such cities implies that there would be some GAC approval process, again for dozens of places, none of which has any more right to the word “Toledo” than the next place. So your “Clearwater” scenario is named exactly backwards– it muddies the waters, it doesn’t clear them. None of the above scenarios lead to simplicity or predictability, two of our core principles. Also, thanks to Maureen who proposes “(1) population (2) country – legitimacy” Toledo is a great example of Ohio being the largest Toledo but Spain being the oldest. So, Toledo, Ohio would “win” which means free speech would win since Toledo, Ohio is located in a jurisdiction that prevents governments from stifling the speech of its citizens. But does that make Toledo, Spain any less legitimate? The answer, in my mind, is “no” since neither place has any legitimate claim to the word “Toledo” sufficient to keep it from being written as a top level domain name. Folks, I think we have to stop trying to create rights for governments that they haven’t even legislated for themselves. ICANN is not the place to introduce new legislation – the community has enough trouble on our hands just trying to get ICANN’s policies in alignment with actual laws. It doesn’t do us any good to cook up compliance with non-existent laws – thus over engineering the next round and setting it up for confusion disputes, and extra costs. Best, Paul Places[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...>] Canada[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...>] · Paris, Ontario<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Ontario>, a community · Paris, Yukon<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Yukon>, a former community United States[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...>] · Paris, Arkansas<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Arkansas>, a city · Paris, Idaho<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Idaho>, a city · Paris, Illinois<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Illinois>, a city · Paris, Indiana<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Indiana>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Iowa<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Iowa>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Kentucky<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Kentucky>, a city · Paris, Maine<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Maine>, a town · Paris, an unincorporated community in Green Charter Township, Michigan<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Charter_Township,_Michigan> · Paris, Mississippi<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Mississippi>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Missouri<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Missouri>, a city · Paris, New Hampshire<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_New_Hampshire>, an unincorporated community · Paris, New York<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_New_York>, a town · Paris, Portage County, Ohio<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Portage_County,_Ohio>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Stark County, Ohio<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Stark_County,_Ohio>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Oregon<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Oregon>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Pennsylvania<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Pennsylvania>, a census-designated place · Paris, Tennessee<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Tennessee>, a city · Paris, Texas<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Texas>, a city · Paris, Virginia<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Virginia>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Wisconsin (disambiguation)<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Wisconsin_(disambiguation)>, several Wisconsin localities · Paris Township (disambiguation)<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Township_(disambiguation)>, several US localities · Beresford, South Dakota<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beresford,_South_Dakota>, a city formerly called Paris · Loraine, California<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loraine,_California>, an unincorporated community formerly called Paris · Paris Mountain, South Carolina - see Paris Mountain State Park<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Mountain_State_Park> · Paris Mountain<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Mountain>, Virginia Other[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...>] · Paris, Denmark<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Denmark>, a hamlet in Jutland · Paris, Kiribati<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Kiribati>, in the central Pacific Ocean · París, Herrera<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par%C3%ADs,_Herrera>, Panama, a corregimiento or subdistrict · Paris Basin<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Basin>, a geological region of France · Paris Peak<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peak>, Anvers Island, Antarctica · 3317 Paris<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3317_Paris>, a minor planet named after the legendary figure of the Trojan War Belize[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=2&edit...>] · Toledo District<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_District> · Toledo Settlement<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_Settlement> Brazil[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=3&edit...>] · Toledo, Minas Gerais<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Minas_Gerais> · Toledo, Paraná<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Paran%C3%A1> Colombia[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=4&edit...>] · Toledo, Norte de Santander<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Norte_de_Santander> Philippines[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=5&edit...>] · Toledo, Cebu<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Cebu> Spain[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=6&edit...>] · Taifa of Toledo<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taifa_of_Toledo> (1010-1085) · Kingdom of Toledo<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Toledo> (1085–1833) · Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toledo<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Toledo> · Toledo (Spanish Congress electoral district)<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_(Spanish_Congress_electoral_district)> United States[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=7&edit...>] · Toledo, Illinois<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Illinois>, a village · Toledo, Iowa<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Iowa>, a small town · Toledo, Kansas<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Kansas>, an unincorporated community · Toledo, Callaway County, Missouri<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Callaway_County,_Missouri>, an unincorporated community · Toledo, Ozark County, Missouri<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ozark_County,_Missouri>, an unincorporated community · Toledo, Ohio<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ohio> · Toledo, Oregon<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Oregon>, a small town · Toledo, Washington<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Washington>, a small city · Toldeo, Texas<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toldeo,_Texas&action=edit&redlink...>, a small town Uruguay[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=8&edit...>] · Toledo, Uruguay<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Uruguay> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Kris Seeburn Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 2:39 PM To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018 I was rethinking this and a way forward could be at this point taking capitals/cities into a second round. We still need to think business models as well. So at this point in time we could move Geonames to the three letter ISO and also country names in full as set out in ISO / UN recognition as well. The population size could be very well thought of in a second phase of this workings. The longer we take to get to the other bits we may be stalling the whole process as well.So my take is get the first of these moving ahead. I was stating islands as i can take Seychelles has an overall population as a country of around 95,000 so imagine it’s capital “VICTORIA” or it’s other main Hub “MAHE”. There are also other countries or Islands we may have to think and cater for. So my suggestion is to take into consideration the population size for sure but perhaps add a second variable which would be the country itself. Big countries in general may understand that you cannot just use or take names of capitals or other cities just like that without Govt approval. But the issue remains the awareness that needs to go down to ensure the required understanding. So perhaps two variables should be (1) population (2) country - legitimacy — perhaps that may go better with GAC as well as many others. My two cents. On Jul 20, 2018, at 22:56, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: +1 seems a very good argument to me On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com>> wrote: Alex Sounds like a pretty good way forward. Perhaps as you say population size should also be based on the country applying as some are also islands and may not be having a large population like New York, Paris and loads of others. kris On Jul 20, 2018, at 21:22, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Hi group, during the last call and in its chat were some serious conflations of facts. Let me explain the fact base on the floated examples of “.bingo”, “.paris” and I am adding “.clearwater” (“Clearwater” being a placeholder for any “city” like “Clearwater” in Florida which has 100k+ inhabitants, is probably know by every single American and every single German, might be confused with “unspoiled water” – but Google finds obviously ONLY city related content.) We had a new gTLD round. It was in 2012 – applicants had to follow the rules of the application guidelines for it. That’s our base. The rules are quite specific and it would be nice if group members read them at least ONCE (the chat contributions made it painful clear that not everybody here has read the city related new gTLD policies of the 2012 AGB). • BINGO: If in 2012 some brand or generic term applicant had applied for .bingo and there would be a non-capital city “Bingo”; that city would NOT have to be asked for Government support if .bingo was declared as non-geo use application! The notion that every city “Bingo” had to be asked for permission is ridiculous and bares any fact basis. • .paris: Any applicant for any city or brand “PARIS” would have been required to get the approval of the French Capital. To my understanding if the geo-use was intended then from all other places that qualify as “city” as well! We might look into the formulation “relevant Government” and “associated with the city name”: Paris Texas has 25k people, is a city, and the city’s name is “Texas”. To my understanding any application that declares geo-use (even if by the French capital) they would have had to acquire Government support from Paris, TX as well (please discuss, please correct me if you identify evidence to the contrary). I do not see that the French capital was prioritized over Paris, TX. • .clearwater: In the call somebody questioned why “The City” (some city) had any fundamental issues if a gTLD like “.clearwater” (which I use as a fictional example for any small city) was applied for by e.g. a beverage company with a brand “CLEAR WATER”. I am not going to speak on behalf of cites (as in “government bodies”): maybe some GAC member could do that! I am caring about the CONSTITUENTS in that city! The businesses. The People! The organizations. It is THOSE who have a potentially terrible loss: YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME. It can’t be that the marketing desire of a beverage brand tops the freedom of expression and identity of tens or worse HUNDREDS of thousands of citizens! So all in all: Brands and generic applicants faced more or less ZERO “resistance” in the 2012 AGB – as they could always claim the non-geo use. What is being discussed currently (and yes for full disclosure: I am the initiator of that idea): • In the 2012 AGB we already eliminated the non-geo use for capitals and 3166 Alpha-2 regions! • BIG cities are as important – and too many people and stakeholders would suffer from city name grabbing on top-level in the DNS • The solution is to elevate at least sizeable cities to the protection level of capital cities! • A cut-off measure has to be defined – e.g. population size Thanks, Alexander Schubert From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 12:10 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018 Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (11 July). 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 attached slides as well as the Working Document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRUXAo/edit<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRUXAo%2Fedit&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cdb15f0d902484827682608d5ee7885ee%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636677123764221322&sdata=E1boSeyGtZsKbrr0Ac8d1sDn%2FAu5cwURV1QRYRHLsBo%3D&reserved=0>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cdb15f0d902484827682608d5ee7885ee%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636677123764221322&sdata=RRs2FEJ3ixxle4CLxPocJa1VFPRN6MDZpyxESkju9kE%3D&reserved=0> Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin...> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it" <KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cdb15f0d902484827682608d5ee7885ee%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636677123764221322&sdata=RRs2FEJ3ixxle4CLxPocJa1VFPRN6MDZpyxESkju9kE%3D&reserved=0> Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin...> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it" [cid:image001.gif@01D42038.24CE1510] ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Hi all, I completely endorse everything Paul has said below. Best regards, Griffin ________________________________ [https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b113a1d2a61b_WIPG_LogoMark.png]<https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Griffin M. Barnett Associate Winterfeldt IP Group 1200 17<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>th<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>, Ste 501<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> griffin@winterfeldt.law<mailto:griffin@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 759 5836 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 4:02 PM To: Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com>; Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018 Thanks Alexander. Just to clarify the record, I didn’t suggest in the call that .bingo had to seek approvals from all those cities in the last round. It was introduced as an example of how ridiculous this can get if we go down the slippery slope of expanding censorship in the top level any further than it has already been extended. Perhaps something was lost in the translation. Regarding Paris, there are dozens of places that bear that name (which originated in Greek mythology, by the way, and not in France). I’ve copied them at the end. Under a strict reading of the AGB from the last round, an applicant would have had to get a letter from the government of each of these places. A very silly rule. Regarding your “Clearwater” place holder, let’s swap in Toledo instead. Toledo, Spain has been around since about the time of Christ and currently has a population of 83,000. Toledo, Ohio, has been around only since 1833 but has a population of nearly 651,429, many times that of the little city in Spain. This is not even to mention the over a dozen other places named Toledo. Your suggestion that a GAC rep may speak for the people of such cities implies that there would be some GAC approval process, again for dozens of places, none of which has any more right to the word “Toledo” than the next place. So your “Clearwater” scenario is named exactly backwards– it muddies the waters, it doesn’t clear them. None of the above scenarios lead to simplicity or predictability, two of our core principles. Also, thanks to Maureen who proposes “(1) population (2) country – legitimacy” Toledo is a great example of Ohio being the largest Toledo but Spain being the oldest. So, Toledo, Ohio would “win” which means free speech would win since Toledo, Ohio is located in a jurisdiction that prevents governments from stifling the speech of its citizens. But does that make Toledo, Spain any less legitimate? The answer, in my mind, is “no” since neither place has any legitimate claim to the word “Toledo” sufficient to keep it from being written as a top level domain name. Folks, I think we have to stop trying to create rights for governments that they haven’t even legislated for themselves. ICANN is not the place to introduce new legislation – the community has enough trouble on our hands just trying to get ICANN’s policies in alignment with actual laws. It doesn’t do us any good to cook up compliance with non-existent laws – thus over engineering the next round and setting it up for confusion disputes, and extra costs. Best, Paul Places[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...>] Canada[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...>] · Paris, Ontario<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Ontario>, a community · Paris, Yukon<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Yukon>, a former community United States[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...>] · Paris, Arkansas<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Arkansas>, a city · Paris, Idaho<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Idaho>, a city · Paris, Illinois<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Illinois>, a city · Paris, Indiana<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Indiana>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Iowa<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Iowa>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Kentucky<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Kentucky>, a city · Paris, Maine<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Maine>, a town · Paris, an unincorporated community in Green Charter Township, Michigan<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Charter_Township,_Michigan> · Paris, Mississippi<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Mississippi>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Missouri<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Missouri>, a city · Paris, New Hampshire<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_New_Hampshire>, an unincorporated community · Paris, New York<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_New_York>, a town · Paris, Portage County, Ohio<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Portage_County,_Ohio>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Stark County, Ohio<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Stark_County,_Ohio>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Oregon<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Oregon>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Pennsylvania<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Pennsylvania>, a census-designated place · Paris, Tennessee<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Tennessee>, a city · Paris, Texas<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Texas>, a city · Paris, Virginia<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Virginia>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Wisconsin (disambiguation)<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Wisconsin_(disambiguation)>, several Wisconsin localities · Paris Township (disambiguation)<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Township_(disambiguation)>, several US localities · Beresford, South Dakota<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beresford,_South_Dakota>, a city formerly called Paris · Loraine, California<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loraine,_California>, an unincorporated community formerly called Paris · Paris Mountain, South Carolina - see Paris Mountain State Park<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Mountain_State_Park> · Paris Mountain<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Mountain>, Virginia Other[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...>] · Paris, Denmark<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Denmark>, a hamlet in Jutland · Paris, Kiribati<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Kiribati>, in the central Pacific Ocean · París, Herrera<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par%C3%ADs,_Herrera>, Panama, a corregimiento or subdistrict · Paris Basin<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Basin>, a geological region of France · Paris Peak<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peak>, Anvers Island, Antarctica · 3317 Paris<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3317_Paris>, a minor planet named after the legendary figure of the Trojan War Belize[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=2&edit...>] · Toledo District<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_District> · Toledo Settlement<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_Settlement> Brazil[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=3&edit...>] · Toledo, Minas Gerais<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Minas_Gerais> · Toledo, Paraná<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Paran%C3%A1> Colombia[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=4&edit...>] · Toledo, Norte de Santander<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Norte_de_Santander> Philippines[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=5&edit...>] · Toledo, Cebu<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Cebu> Spain[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=6&edit...>] · Taifa of Toledo<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taifa_of_Toledo> (1010-1085) · Kingdom of Toledo<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Toledo> (1085–1833) · Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toledo<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Toledo> · Toledo (Spanish Congress electoral district)<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_(Spanish_Congress_electoral_district)> United States[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=7&edit...>] · Toledo, Illinois<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Illinois>, a village · Toledo, Iowa<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Iowa>, a small town · Toledo, Kansas<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Kansas>, an unincorporated community · Toledo, Callaway County, Missouri<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Callaway_County,_Missouri>, an unincorporated community · Toledo, Ozark County, Missouri<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ozark_County,_Missouri>, an unincorporated community · Toledo, Ohio<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ohio> · Toledo, Oregon<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Oregon>, a small town · Toledo, Washington<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Washington>, a small city · Toldeo, Texas<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toldeo,_Texas&action=edit&redlink...>, a small town Uruguay[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=8&edit...>] · Toledo, Uruguay<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Uruguay> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Kris Seeburn Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 2:39 PM To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018 I was rethinking this and a way forward could be at this point taking capitals/cities into a second round. We still need to think business models as well. So at this point in time we could move Geonames to the three letter ISO and also country names in full as set out in ISO / UN recognition as well. The population size could be very well thought of in a second phase of this workings. The longer we take to get to the other bits we may be stalling the whole process as well.So my take is get the first of these moving ahead. I was stating islands as i can take Seychelles has an overall population as a country of around 95,000 so imagine it’s capital “VICTORIA” or it’s other main Hub “MAHE”. There are also other countries or Islands we may have to think and cater for. So my suggestion is to take into consideration the population size for sure but perhaps add a second variable which would be the country itself. Big countries in general may understand that you cannot just use or take names of capitals or other cities just like that without Govt approval. But the issue remains the awareness that needs to go down to ensure the required understanding. So perhaps two variables should be (1) population (2) country - legitimacy — perhaps that may go better with GAC as well as many others. My two cents. On Jul 20, 2018, at 22:56, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: +1 seems a very good argument to me On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com>> wrote: Alex Sounds like a pretty good way forward. Perhaps as you say population size should also be based on the country applying as some are also islands and may not be having a large population like New York, Paris and loads of others. kris On Jul 20, 2018, at 21:22, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Hi group, during the last call and in its chat were some serious conflations of facts. Let me explain the fact base on the floated examples of “.bingo”, “.paris” and I am adding “.clearwater” (“Clearwater” being a placeholder for any “city” like “Clearwater” in Florida which has 100k+ inhabitants, is probably know by every single American and every single German, might be confused with “unspoiled water” – but Google finds obviously ONLY city related content.) We had a new gTLD round. It was in 2012 – applicants had to follow the rules of the application guidelines for it. That’s our base. The rules are quite specific and it would be nice if group members read them at least ONCE (the chat contributions made it painful clear that not everybody here has read the city related new gTLD policies of the 2012 AGB). • BINGO: If in 2012 some brand or generic term applicant had applied for .bingo and there would be a non-capital city “Bingo”; that city would NOT have to be asked for Government support if .bingo was declared as non-geo use application! The notion that every city “Bingo” had to be asked for permission is ridiculous and bares any fact basis. • .paris: Any applicant for any city or brand “PARIS” would have been required to get the approval of the French Capital. To my understanding if the geo-use was intended then from all other places that qualify as “city” as well! We might look into the formulation “relevant Government” and “associated with the city name”: Paris Texas has 25k people, is a city, and the city’s name is “Texas”. To my understanding any application that declares geo-use (even if by the French capital) they would have had to acquire Government support from Paris, TX as well (please discuss, please correct me if you identify evidence to the contrary). I do not see that the French capital was prioritized over Paris, TX. • .clearwater: In the call somebody questioned why “The City” (some city) had any fundamental issues if a gTLD like “.clearwater” (which I use as a fictional example for any small city) was applied for by e.g. a beverage company with a brand “CLEAR WATER”. I am not going to speak on behalf of cites (as in “government bodies”): maybe some GAC member could do that! I am caring about the CONSTITUENTS in that city! The businesses. The People! The organizations. It is THOSE who have a potentially terrible loss: YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME. It can’t be that the marketing desire of a beverage brand tops the freedom of expression and identity of tens or worse HUNDREDS of thousands of citizens! So all in all: Brands and generic applicants faced more or less ZERO “resistance” in the 2012 AGB – as they could always claim the non-geo use. What is being discussed currently (and yes for full disclosure: I am the initiator of that idea): • In the 2012 AGB we already eliminated the non-geo use for capitals and 3166 Alpha-2 regions! • BIG cities are as important – and too many people and stakeholders would suffer from city name grabbing on top-level in the DNS • The solution is to elevate at least sizeable cities to the protection level of capital cities! • A cut-off measure has to be defined – e.g. population size Thanks, Alexander Schubert From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 12:10 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018 Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (11 July). 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 attached slides as well as the Working Document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRUXAo/edit<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRUXAo%2Fedit&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cdb15f0d902484827682608d5ee7885ee%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636677123764221322&sdata=E1boSeyGtZsKbrr0Ac8d1sDn%2FAu5cwURV1QRYRHLsBo%3D&reserved=0>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cdb15f0d902484827682608d5ee7885ee%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636677123764221322&sdata=RRs2FEJ3ixxle4CLxPocJa1VFPRN6MDZpyxESkju9kE%3D&reserved=0> Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin...> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it" <KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cdb15f0d902484827682608d5ee7885ee%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636677123764221322&sdata=RRs2FEJ3ixxle4CLxPocJa1VFPRN6MDZpyxESkju9kE%3D&reserved=0> Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin...> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it" [cid:image004.gif@01D42043.ED034860] ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
+1 for this. The discussion continues to make me think that any solution we would propose would only be arbitrary, capable of rent-seeking, and in the end utterly unworkable. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 4:02 PM To: Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com>; Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018 Thanks Alexander. Just to clarify the record, I didn’t suggest in the call that .bingo had to seek approvals from all those cities in the last round. It was introduced as an example of how ridiculous this can get if we go down the slippery slope of expanding censorship in the top level any further than it has already been extended. Perhaps something was lost in the translation. Regarding Paris, there are dozens of places that bear that name (which originated in Greek mythology, by the way, and not in France). I’ve copied them at the end. Under a strict reading of the AGB from the last round, an applicant would have had to get a letter from the government of each of these places. A very silly rule. Regarding your “Clearwater” place holder, let’s swap in Toledo instead. Toledo, Spain has been around since about the time of Christ and currently has a population of 83,000. Toledo, Ohio, has been around only since 1833 but has a population of nearly 651,429, many times that of the little city in Spain. This is not even to mention the over a dozen other places named Toledo. Your suggestion that a GAC rep may speak for the people of such cities implies that there would be some GAC approval process, again for dozens of places, none of which has any more right to the word “Toledo” than the next place. So your “Clearwater” scenario is named exactly backwards– it muddies the waters, it doesn’t clear them. None of the above scenarios lead to simplicity or predictability, two of our core principles. Also, thanks to Maureen who proposes “(1) population (2) country – legitimacy” Toledo is a great example of Ohio being the largest Toledo but Spain being the oldest. So, Toledo, Ohio would “win” which means free speech would win since Toledo, Ohio is located in a jurisdiction that prevents governments from stifling the speech of its citizens. But does that make Toledo, Spain any less legitimate? The answer, in my mind, is “no” since neither place has any legitimate claim to the word “Toledo” sufficient to keep it from being written as a top level domain name. Folks, I think we have to stop trying to create rights for governments that they haven’t even legislated for themselves. ICANN is not the place to introduce new legislation – the community has enough trouble on our hands just trying to get ICANN’s policies in alignment with actual laws. It doesn’t do us any good to cook up compliance with non-existent laws – thus over engineering the next round and setting it up for confusion disputes, and extra costs. Best, Paul Places[ <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...> edit] Canada[ <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...> edit] * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Ontario> Paris, Ontario, a community * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Yukon> Paris, Yukon, a former community United States[ <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...> edit] * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Arkansas> Paris, Arkansas, a city * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Idaho> Paris, Idaho, a city * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Illinois> Paris, Illinois, a city * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Indiana> Paris, Indiana, an unincorporated community * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Iowa> Paris, Iowa, an unincorporated community * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Kentucky> Paris, Kentucky, a city * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Maine> Paris, Maine, a town * Paris, an unincorporated community in <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Charter_Township,_Michigan> Green Charter Township, Michigan * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Mississippi> Paris, Mississippi, an unincorporated community * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Missouri> Paris, Missouri, a city * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_New_Hampshire> Paris, New Hampshire, an unincorporated community * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_New_York> Paris, New York, a town * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Portage_County,_Ohio> Paris, Portage County, Ohio, an unincorporated community * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Stark_County,_Ohio> Paris, Stark County, Ohio, an unincorporated community * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Oregon> Paris, Oregon, an unincorporated community * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Pennsylvania> Paris, Pennsylvania, a census-designated place * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Tennessee> Paris, Tennessee, a city * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Texas> Paris, Texas, a city * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Virginia> Paris, Virginia, an unincorporated community * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Wisconsin_(disambiguation)> Paris, Wisconsin (disambiguation), several Wisconsin localities * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Township_(disambiguation)> Paris Township (disambiguation), several US localities * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beresford,_South_Dakota> Beresford, South Dakota, a city formerly called Paris * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loraine,_California> Loraine, California, an unincorporated community formerly called Paris * Paris Mountain, South Carolina - see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Mountain_State_Park> Paris Mountain State Park * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Mountain> Paris Mountain, Virginia Other[ <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...> edit] * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Denmark> Paris, Denmark, a hamlet in Jutland * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Kiribati> Paris, Kiribati, in the central Pacific Ocean * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par%C3%ADs,_Herrera> París, Herrera, Panama, a corregimiento or subdistrict * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Basin> Paris Basin, a geological region of France * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peak> Paris Peak, Anvers Island, Antarctica * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3317_Paris> 3317 Paris, a minor planet named after the legendary figure of the Trojan War Belize[ <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=2&edit...> edit] * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_District> Toledo District * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_Settlement> Toledo Settlement Brazil[ <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=3&edit...> edit] * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Minas_Gerais> Toledo, Minas Gerais * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Paran%C3%A1> Toledo, Paraná Colombia[ <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=4&edit...> edit] * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Norte_de_Santander> Toledo, Norte de Santander Philippines[ <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=5&edit...> edit] * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Cebu> Toledo, Cebu Spain[ <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=6&edit...> edit] * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taifa_of_Toledo> Taifa of Toledo (1010-1085) * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Toledo> Kingdom of Toledo (1085–1833) * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Toledo> Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toledo * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_(Spanish_Congress_electoral_district)> Toledo (Spanish Congress electoral district) United States[ <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=7&edit...> edit] * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Illinois> Toledo, Illinois, a village * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Iowa> Toledo, Iowa, a small town * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Kansas> Toledo, Kansas, an unincorporated community * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Callaway_County,_Missouri> Toledo, Callaway County, Missouri, an unincorporated community * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ozark_County,_Missouri> Toledo, Ozark County, Missouri, an unincorporated community * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ohio> Toledo, Ohio * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Oregon> Toledo, Oregon, a small town * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Washington> Toledo, Washington, a small city * <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toldeo,_Texas&action=edit&redlink...> Toldeo, Texas, a small town Uruguay[ <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=8&edit...> edit] * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Uruguay> Toledo, Uruguay From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Kris Seeburn Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 2:39 PM To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> > Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018 I was rethinking this and a way forward could be at this point taking capitals/cities into a second round. We still need to think business models as well. So at this point in time we could move Geonames to the three letter ISO and also country names in full as set out in ISO / UN recognition as well. The population size could be very well thought of in a second phase of this workings. The longer we take to get to the other bits we may be stalling the whole process as well.So my take is get the first of these moving ahead. I was stating islands as i can take Seychelles has an overall population as a country of around 95,000 so imagine it’s capital “VICTORIA” or it’s other main Hub “MAHE”. There are also other countries or Islands we may have to think and cater for. So my suggestion is to take into consideration the population size for sure but perhaps add a second variable which would be the country itself. Big countries in general may understand that you cannot just use or take names of capitals or other cities just like that without Govt approval. But the issue remains the awareness that needs to go down to ensure the required understanding. So perhaps two variables should be (1) population (2) country - legitimacy — perhaps that may go better with GAC as well as many others. My two cents. On Jul 20, 2018, at 22:56, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> > wrote: +1 seems a very good argument to me On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> > wrote: Alex Sounds like a pretty good way forward. Perhaps as you say population size should also be based on the country applying as some are also islands and may not be having a large population like New York, Paris and loads of others. kris On Jul 20, 2018, at 21:22, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Hi group, during the last call and in its chat were some serious conflations of facts. Let me explain the fact base on the floated examples of “.bingo”, “.paris” and I am adding “.clearwater” (“Clearwater” being a placeholder for any “city” like “Clearwater” in Florida which has 100k+ inhabitants, is probably know by every single American and every single German, might be confused with “unspoiled water” – but Google finds obviously ONLY city related content.) We had a new gTLD round. It was in 2012 – applicants had to follow the rules of the application guidelines for it. That’s our base. The rules are quite specific and it would be nice if group members read them at least ONCE (the chat contributions made it painful clear that not everybody here has read the city related new gTLD policies of the 2012 AGB). * BINGO: If in 2012 some brand or generic term applicant had applied for .bingo and there would be a non-capital city “Bingo”; that city would NOT have to be asked for Government support if .bingo was declared as non-geo use application! The notion that every city “Bingo” had to be asked for permission is ridiculous and bares any fact basis. * .paris: Any applicant for any city or brand “PARIS” would have been required to get the approval of the French Capital. To my understanding if the geo-use was intended then from all other places that qualify as “city” as well! We might look into the formulation “relevant Government” and “associated with the city name”: Paris Texas has 25k people, is a city, and the city’s name is “Texas”. To my understanding any application that declares geo-use (even if by the French capital) they would have had to acquire Government support from Paris, TX as well (please discuss, please correct me if you identify evidence to the contrary). I do not see that the French capital was prioritized over Paris, TX. * .clearwater: In the call somebody questioned why “The City” (some city) had any fundamental issues if a gTLD like “.clearwater” (which I use as a fictional example for any small city) was applied for by e.g. a beverage company with a brand “CLEAR WATER”. I am not going to speak on behalf of cites (as in “government bodies”): maybe some GAC member could do that! I am caring about the CONSTITUENTS in that city! The businesses. The People! The organizations. It is THOSE who have a potentially terrible loss: YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME. It can’t be that the marketing desire of a beverage brand tops the freedom of expression and identity of tens or worse HUNDREDS of thousands of citizens! So all in all: Brands and generic applicants faced more or less ZERO “resistance” in the 2012 AGB – as they could always claim the non-geo use. What is being discussed currently (and yes for full disclosure: I am the initiator of that idea): * In the 2012 AGB we already eliminated the non-geo use for capitals and 3166 Alpha-2 regions! * BIG cities are as important – and too many people and stakeholders would suffer from city name grabbing on top-level in the DNS * The solution is to elevate at least sizeable cities to the protection level of capital cities! * A cut-off measure has to be defined – e.g. population size Thanks, Alexander Schubert From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [ <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 12:10 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018 Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (11 July). 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 attached slides as well as the Working Document at: <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google...> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRU.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> LinkedIn: <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin...> linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it" <KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> LinkedIn: <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin...> linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it" _____ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
I completely agree and add there is nothing to stop any locality from applying for a string, should they wish too. Bestowing on anyone (including govts) the automatic right to prevent a string by requiring permission to use a word is antithetical to the principle of "permissionless innovation”, a key principle for a free and open Internet (and big reason for its success). Robin
On Jul 20, 2018, at 1:22 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
+1 for this. The discussion continues to make me think that any solution we would propose would only be arbitrary, capable of rent-seeking, and in the end utterly unworkable.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684>
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 4:02 PM To: Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com>; Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
Thanks Alexander.
Just to clarify the record, I didn’t suggest in the call that .bingo had to seek approvals from all those cities in the last round. It was introduced as an example of how ridiculous this can get if we go down the slippery slope of expanding censorship in the top level any further than it has already been extended. Perhaps something was lost in the translation.
Regarding Paris, there are dozens of places that bear that name (which originated in Greek mythology, by the way, and not in France). I’ve copied them at the end. Under a strict reading of the AGB from the last round, an applicant would have had to get a letter from the government of each of these places. A very silly rule.
Regarding your “Clearwater” place holder, let’s swap in Toledo instead. Toledo, Spain has been around since about the time of Christ and currently has a population of 83,000. Toledo, Ohio, has been around only since 1833 but has a population of nearly 651,429, many times that of the little city in Spain. This is not even to mention the over a dozen other places named Toledo. Your suggestion that a GAC rep may speak for the people of such cities implies that there would be some GAC approval process, again for dozens of places, none of which has any more right to the word “Toledo” than the next place. So your “Clearwater” scenario is named exactly backwards– it muddies the waters, it doesn’t clear them.
None of the above scenarios lead to simplicity or predictability, two of our core principles.
Also, thanks to Maureen who proposes “(1) population (2) country – legitimacy”
Toledo is a great example of Ohio being the largest Toledo but Spain being the oldest. So, Toledo, Ohio would “win” which means free speech would win since Toledo, Ohio is located in a jurisdiction that prevents governments from stifling the speech of its citizens. But does that make Toledo, Spain any less legitimate? The answer, in my mind, is “no” since neither place has any legitimate claim to the word “Toledo” sufficient to keep it from being written as a top level domain name.
Folks, I think we have to stop trying to create rights for governments that they haven’t even legislated for themselves. ICANN is not the place to introduce new legislation – the community has enough trouble on our hands just trying to get ICANN’s policies in alignment with actual laws. It doesn’t do us any good to cook up compliance with non-existent laws – thus over engineering the next round and setting it up for confusion disputes, and extra costs.
Best, Paul
Places[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...>] Canada[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...>] · Paris, Ontario <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Ontario>, a community · Paris, Yukon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Yukon>, a former community United States[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...>] · Paris, Arkansas <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Arkansas>, a city · Paris, Idaho <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Idaho>, a city · Paris, Illinois <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Illinois>, a city · Paris, Indiana <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Indiana>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Iowa <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Iowa>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Kentucky <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Kentucky>, a city · Paris, Maine <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Maine>, a town · Paris, an unincorporated community in Green Charter Township, Michigan <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Charter_Township,_Michigan> · Paris, Mississippi <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Mississippi>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Missouri <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Missouri>, a city · Paris, New Hampshire <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_New_Hampshire>, an unincorporated community · Paris, New York <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_New_York>, a town · Paris, Portage County, Ohio <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Portage_County,_Ohio>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Stark County, Ohio <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Stark_County,_Ohio>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Oregon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Oregon>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Pennsylvania <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Pennsylvania>, a census-designated place · Paris, Tennessee <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Tennessee>, a city · Paris, Texas <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Texas>, a city · Paris, Virginia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Virginia>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Wisconsin (disambiguation) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Wisconsin_(disambiguation)>, several Wisconsin localities · Paris Township (disambiguation) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Township_(disambiguation)>, several US localities · Beresford, South Dakota <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beresford,_South_Dakota>, a city formerly called Paris · Loraine, California <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loraine,_California>, an unincorporated community formerly called Paris · Paris Mountain, South Carolina - see Paris Mountain State Park <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Mountain_State_Park> · Paris Mountain <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Mountain>, Virginia Other[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...>] · Paris, Denmark <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Denmark>, a hamlet in Jutland · Paris, Kiribati <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Kiribati>, in the central Pacific Ocean · París, Herrera <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par%C3%ADs,_Herrera>, Panama, a corregimiento or subdistrict · Paris Basin <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Basin>, a geological region of France · Paris Peak <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peak>, Anvers Island, Antarctica · 3317 Paris <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3317_Paris>, a minor planet named after the legendary figure of the Trojan War
Belize[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=2&edit...>] · Toledo District <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_District> · Toledo Settlement <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_Settlement> Brazil[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=3&edit...>] · Toledo, Minas Gerais <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Minas_Gerais> · Toledo, Paraná <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Paran%C3%A1> Colombia[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=4&edit...>] · Toledo, Norte de Santander <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Norte_de_Santander> Philippines[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=5&edit...>] · Toledo, Cebu <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Cebu> Spain[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=6&edit...>] · Taifa of Toledo <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taifa_of_Toledo> (1010-1085) · Kingdom of Toledo <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Toledo> (1085–1833) · Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toledo <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Toledo> · Toledo (Spanish Congress electoral district) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_(Spanish_Congress_electoral_district)> United States[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=7&edit...>] · Toledo, Illinois <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Illinois>, a village · Toledo, Iowa <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Iowa>, a small town · Toledo, Kansas <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Kansas>, an unincorporated community · Toledo, Callaway County, Missouri <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Callaway_County,_Missouri>, an unincorporated community · Toledo, Ozark County, Missouri <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ozark_County,_Missouri>, an unincorporated community · Toledo, Ohio <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ohio> · Toledo, Oregon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Oregon>, a small town · Toledo, Washington <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Washington>, a small city · Toldeo, Texas <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toldeo,_Texas&action=edit&redlink...>, a small town Uruguay[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=8&edit...>] · Toledo, Uruguay <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Uruguay>
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Kris Seeburn Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 2:39 PM To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
I was rethinking this and a way forward could be at this point taking capitals/cities into a second round. We still need to think business models as well. So at this point in time we could move Geonames to the three letter ISO and also country names in full as set out in ISO / UN recognition as well.
The population size could be very well thought of in a second phase of this workings. The longer we take to get to the other bits we may be stalling the whole process as well.So my take is get the first of these moving ahead. I was stating islands as i can take Seychelles has an overall population as a country of around 95,000 so imagine it’s capital “VICTORIA” or it’s other main Hub “MAHE”. There are also other countries or Islands we may have to think and cater for.
So my suggestion is to take into consideration the population size for sure but perhaps add a second variable which would be the country itself. Big countries in general may understand that you cannot just use or take names of capitals or other cities just like that without Govt approval. But the issue remains the awareness that needs to go down to ensure the required understanding.
So perhaps two variables should be (1) population (2) country - legitimacy — perhaps that may go better with GAC as well as many others.
My two cents.
On Jul 20, 2018, at 22:56, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote:
+1 seems a very good argument to me
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com>> wrote:
Alex
Sounds like a pretty good way forward. Perhaps as you say population size should also be based on the country applying as some are also islands and may not be having a large population like New York, Paris and loads of others.
kris
On Jul 20, 2018, at 21:22, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Hi group,
during the last call and in its chat were some serious conflations of facts. Let me explain the fact base on the floated examples of “.bingo”, “.paris” and I am adding “.clearwater” (“Clearwater” being a placeholder for any “city” like “Clearwater” in Florida which has 100k+ inhabitants, is probably know by every single American and every single German, might be confused with “unspoiled water” – but Google finds obviously ONLY city related content.)
We had a new gTLD round. It was in 2012 – applicants had to follow the rules of the application guidelines for it. That’s our base. The rules are quite specific and it would be nice if group members read them at least ONCE (the chat contributions made it painful clear that not everybody here has read the city related new gTLD policies of the 2012 AGB).
· BINGO: If in 2012 some brand or generic term applicant had applied for .bingo and there would be a non-capital city “Bingo”; that city would NOT have to be asked for Government support if .bingo was declared as non-geo use application! The notion that every city “Bingo” had to be asked for permission is ridiculous and bares any fact basis. · .paris: Any applicant for any city or brand “PARIS” would have been required to get the approval of the French Capital. To my understanding if the geo-use was intended then from all other places that qualify as “city” as well! We might look into the formulation “relevant Government” and “associated with the city name”: Paris Texas has 25k people, is a city, and the city’s name is “Texas”. To my understanding any application that declares geo-use (even if by the French capital) they would have had to acquire Government support from Paris, TX as well (please discuss, please correct me if you identify evidence to the contrary). I do not see that the French capital was prioritized over Paris, TX. · .clearwater: In the call somebody questioned why “The City” (some city) had any fundamental issues if a gTLD like “.clearwater” (which I use as a fictional example for any small city) was applied for by e.g. a beverage company with a brand “CLEAR WATER”. I am not going to speak on behalf of cites (as in “government bodies”): maybe some GAC member could do that! I am caring about the CONSTITUENTS in that city! The businesses. The People! The organizations. It is THOSE who have a potentially terrible loss: YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME. It can’t be that the marketing desire of a beverage brand tops the freedom of expression and identity of tens or worse HUNDREDS of thousands of citizens!
So all in all: Brands and generic applicants faced more or less ZERO “resistance” in the 2012 AGB – as they could always claim the non-geo use. What is being discussed currently (and yes for full disclosure: I am the initiator of that idea): · In the 2012 AGB we already eliminated the non-geo use for capitals and 3166 Alpha-2 regions! · BIG cities are as important – and too many people and stakeholders would suffer from city name grabbing on top-level in the DNS · The solution is to elevate at least sizeable cities to the protection level of capital cities! · A cut-off measure has to be defined – e.g. population size
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 12:10 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (11 July). 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 attached slides as well as the Working Document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRU... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google...>.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin...>
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
<KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin...>
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
<image001.gif>
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
I also completely agree. Furthermore, the entire issue ought to be out of scope of this PDP. This WT should never have been formed and allowed to re-litigate the rules around geo names. They were carefully crafted per comprehensive compromise in 2012, resulting still in an unwarranted giveaway to governments re 2-letter and 3-letter names, and capital cities, and country names for that matter. Those rules only need to be tightened up so the Board and GAC can't disregard them any more in the future, like they have done with Amazon and PersianGulf, at least. We should be talking about minor tweaks to the rules, if any, and strong language taking away GAC and Board discretion to ignore the rules and "object anyway" even when applied-for names are not on the definitive, agreed list. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I completely agree and add there is nothing to stop any locality from applying for a string, should they wish too.
Bestowing on anyone (including govts) the automatic right to prevent a string by requiring permission to use a word is antithetical to the principle of "permissionless innovation”, a key principle for a free and open Internet (and big reason for its success).
Robin
On Jul 20, 2018, at 1:22 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@ redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
+1 for this. The discussion continues to make me think that any solution we would propose would only be arbitrary, capable of rent-seeking, and in the end utterly unworkable.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search= 0x9A830097CA066684
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *McGrady, Paul D. *Sent:* Friday, July 20, 2018 4:02 PM *To:* Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com>; Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
Thanks Alexander.
Just to clarify the record, I didn’t suggest in the call that .bingo had to seek approvals from all those cities in the last round. It was introduced as an example of how ridiculous this can get if we go down the slippery slope of expanding censorship in the top level any further than it has already been extended. Perhaps something was lost in the translation.
Regarding Paris, there are dozens of places that bear that name (which originated in Greek mythology, by the way, and not in France). I’ve copied them at the end. Under a strict reading of the AGB from the last round, an applicant would have had to get a letter from the government of each of these places. A very silly rule.
Regarding your “Clearwater” place holder, let’s swap in Toledo instead. Toledo, Spain has been around since about the time of Christ and currently has a population of 83,000. Toledo, Ohio, has been around only since 1833 but has a population of nearly 651,429, many times that of the little city in Spain. This is not even to mention the over a dozen other places named Toledo. Your suggestion that a GAC rep may speak for the people of such cities implies that there would be some GAC approval process, again for dozens of places, none of which has any more right to the word “Toledo” than the next place. So your “Clearwater” scenario is named exactly backwards– it muddies the waters, it doesn’t clear them.
None of the above scenarios lead to simplicity or predictability, two of our core principles.
Also, thanks to Maureen who proposes “(1) population (2) country – legitimacy”
Toledo is a great example of Ohio being the largest Toledo but Spain being the oldest. So, Toledo, Ohio would “win” which means free speech would win since Toledo, Ohio is located in a jurisdiction that prevents governments from stifling the speech of its citizens. But does that make Toledo, Spain any less legitimate? The answer, in my mind, is “no” since neither place has any legitimate claim to the word “Toledo” sufficient to keep it from being written as a top level domain name.
Folks, I think we have to stop trying to create rights for governments that they haven’t even legislated for themselves. ICANN is not the place to introduce new legislation – the community has enough trouble on our hands just trying to get ICANN’s policies in alignment with actual laws. It doesn’t do us any good to cook up compliance with non-existent laws – thus over engineering the next round and setting it up for confusion disputes, and extra costs.
Best, Paul
Places[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...> ] *Canada*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...> ]
· Paris, Ontario <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Ontario>, a community
· Paris, Yukon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Yukon>, a former community *United States*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...> ]
· Paris, Arkansas <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Arkansas>, a city
· Paris, Idaho <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Idaho>, a city
· Paris, Illinois <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Illinois>, a city
· Paris, Indiana <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Indiana>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Iowa <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Iowa>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Kentucky <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Kentucky>, a city
· Paris, Maine <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Maine>, a town
· Paris, an unincorporated community in Green Charter Township, Michigan <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Charter_Township,_Michigan>
· Paris, Mississippi <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Mississippi>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Missouri <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Missouri>, a city
· Paris, New Hampshire <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_New_Hampshire>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, New York <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_New_York>, a town
· Paris, Portage County, Ohio <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Portage_County,_Ohio>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Stark County, Ohio <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Stark_County,_Ohio>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Oregon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Oregon>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Pennsylvania <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Pennsylvania>, a census-designated place
· Paris, Tennessee <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Tennessee>, a city
· Paris, Texas <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Texas>, a city
· Paris, Virginia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Virginia>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Wisconsin (disambiguation) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Wisconsin_(disambiguation)>, several Wisconsin localities
· Paris Township (disambiguation) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Township_(disambiguation)>, several US localities
· Beresford, South Dakota <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beresford,_South_Dakota>, a city formerly called Paris
· Loraine, California <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loraine,_California>, an unincorporated community formerly called Paris
· Paris Mountain, South Carolina - see Paris Mountain State Park <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Mountain_State_Park>
· Paris Mountain <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Mountain>, Virginia *Other*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...> ]
· Paris, Denmark <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Denmark>, a hamlet in Jutland
· Paris, Kiribati <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Kiribati>, in the central Pacific Ocean
· París, Herrera <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par%C3%ADs,_Herrera>, Panama, a *corregimiento* or subdistrict
· Paris Basin <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Basin>, a geological region of France
· Paris Peak <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peak>, Anvers Island, Antarctica
· 3317 Paris <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3317_Paris>, a minor planet named after the legendary figure of the Trojan War
*Belize*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=2&edit...> ]
· Toledo District <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_District>
· Toledo Settlement <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_Settlement> *Brazil*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=3&edit...> ]
· Toledo, Minas Gerais <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Minas_Gerais>
· Toledo, Paraná <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Paran%C3%A1> *Colombia*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=4&edit...> ]
· Toledo, Norte de Santander <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Norte_de_Santander> *Philippines*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=5&edit...> ]
· Toledo, Cebu <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Cebu> *Spain*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=6&edit...> ]
· Taifa of Toledo <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taifa_of_Toledo> (1010-1085)
· Kingdom of Toledo <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Toledo> (1085–1833)
· Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toledo <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Toledo>
· Toledo (Spanish Congress electoral district) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_(Spanish_Congress_electoral_district)> *United States*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=7&edit...> ]
· Toledo, Illinois <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Illinois>, a village
· Toledo, Iowa <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Iowa>, a small town
· Toledo, Kansas <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Kansas>, an unincorporated community
· Toledo, Callaway County, Missouri <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Callaway_County,_Missouri>, an unincorporated community
· Toledo, Ozark County, Missouri <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ozark_County,_Missouri>, an unincorporated community
· Toledo, Ohio <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ohio>
· Toledo, Oregon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Oregon>, a small town
· Toledo, Washington <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Washington>, a small city
· Toldeo, Texas <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toldeo,_Texas&action=edit&redlink...>, a small town *Uruguay*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=8&edit...> ]
· Toledo, Uruguay <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Uruguay>
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Kris Seeburn *Sent:* Friday, July 20, 2018 2:39 PM *To:* Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
I was rethinking this and a way forward could be at this point taking capitals/cities into a second round. We still need to think business models as well. So at this point in time we could move Geonames to the three letter ISO and also country names in full as set out in ISO / UN recognition as well.
The population size could be very well thought of in a second phase of this workings. The longer we take to get to the other bits we may be stalling the whole process as well.So my take is get the first of these moving ahead. I was stating islands as i can take Seychelles has an overall population as a country of around 95,000 so imagine it’s capital “VICTORIA” or it’s other main Hub “MAHE”. There are also other countries or Islands we may have to think and cater for.
So my suggestion is to take into consideration the population size for sure but perhaps add a second variable which would be the country itself. Big countries in general may understand that you cannot just use or take names of capitals or other cities just like that without Govt approval. But the issue remains the awareness that needs to go down to ensure the required understanding.
So perhaps two variables should be (1) population (2) country - legitimacy — perhaps that may go better with GAC as well as many others.
My two cents.
On Jul 20, 2018, at 22:56, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 seems a very good argument to me
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> wrote:
Alex
Sounds like a pretty good way forward. Perhaps as you say population size should also be based on the country applying as some are also islands and may not be having a large population like New York, Paris and loads of others.
kris
On Jul 20, 2018, at 21:22, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi group,
during the last call and in its chat were some serious conflations of facts. Let me explain the fact base on the floated examples of “.bingo”, “.paris” and I am adding “.clearwater” (“Clearwater” being a placeholder for any “city” like “Clearwater” in Florida which has 100k+ inhabitants, is probably know by every single American and every single German, might be confused with “unspoiled water” – but Google finds obviously ONLY city related content.)
We had a new gTLD round. It was in 2012 – applicants had to follow the rules of the application guidelines for it. That’s our base. The rules are quite specific and it would be nice if group members read them at least ONCE (the chat contributions made it painful clear that not everybody here has read the city related new gTLD policies of the 2012 AGB). · BINGO: If in 2012 some brand or generic term applicant had applied for .bingo and there would be a non-capital city “Bingo”; that city would NOT have to be asked for Government support if .bingo was declared as non-geo use application! The notion that every city “Bingo” had to be asked for permission is ridiculous and bares any fact basis. · .paris: Any applicant for any city or brand “PARIS” would have been required to get the approval of the French Capital. To my understanding if the geo-use was intended then from all other places that qualify as “city” as well! We might look into the formulation “relevant Government” and “associated with the city name”: Paris Texas has 25k people, is a city, and the city’s name is “Texas”. To my understanding any application that declares geo-use (even if by the French capital) they would have had to acquire Government support from Paris, TX as well (please discuss, please correct me if you identify evidence to the contrary). I do not see that the French capital was prioritized over Paris, TX. · .clearwater: In the call somebody questioned why “The City” (some city) had any fundamental issues if a gTLD like “.clearwater” (which I use as a fictional example for any small city) was applied for by e.g. a beverage company with a brand “CLEAR WATER”. I am not going to speak on behalf of cites (as in “government bodies”): maybe some GAC member could do that! I am caring about the CONSTITUENTS in that city! The businesses. The People! The organizations. It is THOSE who have a potentially terrible loss: YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME. It can’t be that the marketing desire of a beverage brand tops the freedom of expression and identity of tens or worse HUNDREDS of thousands of citizens!
So all in all: Brands and generic applicants faced more or less ZERO “resistance” in the 2012 AGB – as they could always claim the non-geo use. What is being discussed currently (and yes for full disclosure: I am the initiator of that idea): · In the 2012 AGB we already eliminated the non-geo use for capitals and 3166 Alpha-2 regions! · BIG cities are as important – and too many people and stakeholders would suffer from city name grabbing on top-level in the DNS · The solution is to elevate at least sizeable cities to the protection level of capital cities! · A cut-off measure has to be defined – e.g. population size
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund *Sent:* Thursday, July 12, 2018 12:10 AM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (11 July). *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 attached slides as well as the Working Document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJ sKyWX8WZXRUXAo/edit <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google...> .
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin...>
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
<KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin...>
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
<image001.gif>
------------------------------ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Mike, as you know, I disagree with you on this entirely. CW
El 20 de julio de 2018 a las 22:57 Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> escribió:
I also completely agree. Furthermore, the entire issue ought to be out of scope of this PDP. This WT should never have been formed and allowed to re-litigate the rules around geo names. They were carefully crafted per comprehensive compromise in 2012, resulting still in an unwarranted giveaway to governments re 2-letter and 3-letter names, and capital cities, and country names for that matter. Those rules only need to be tightened up so the Board and GAC can't disregard them any more in the future, like they have done with Amazon and PersianGulf, at least.
We should be talking about minor tweaks to the rules, if any, and strong language taking away GAC and Board discretion to ignore the rules and "object anyway" even when applied-for names are not on the definitive, agreed list.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org mailto:robin@ipjustice.org > wrote:
> > I completely agree and add there is nothing to stop any locality from applying for a string, should they wish too.
Bestowing on anyone (including govts) the automatic right to prevent a string by requiring permission to use a word is antithetical to the principle of "permissionless innovation”, a key principle for a free and open Internet (and big reason for its success).
Robin
> > > On Jul 20, 2018, at 1:22 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com > wrote:
+1 for this. The discussion continues to make me think that any solution we would propose would only be arbitrary, capable of rent-seeking, and in the end utterly unworkable.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/ My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org > On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 4:02 PM To: Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com >; Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com > Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
Thanks Alexander.
Just to clarify the record, I didn’t suggest in the call that .bingo had to seek approvals from all those cities in the last round. It was introduced as an example of how ridiculous this can get if we go down the slippery slope of expanding censorship in the top level any further than it has already been extended. Perhaps something was lost in the translation.
Regarding Paris, there are dozens of places that bear that name (which originated in Greek mythology, by the way, and not in France). I’ve copied them at the end. Under a strict reading of the AGB from the last round, an applicant would have had to get a letter from the government of each of these places. A very silly rule.
Regarding your “Clearwater” place holder, let’s swap in Toledo instead. Toledo, Spain has been around since about the time of Christ and currently has a population of 83,000. Toledo, Ohio, has been around only since 1833 but has a population of nearly 651,429, many times that of the little city in Spain. This is not even to mention the over a dozen other places named Toledo. Your suggestion that a GAC rep may speak for the people of such cities implies that there would be some GAC approval process, again for dozens of places, none of which has any more right to the word “Toledo” than the next place. So your “Clearwater” scenario is named exactly backwards– it muddies the waters, it doesn’t clear them.
None of the above scenarios lead to simplicity or predictability, two of our core principles.
Also, thanks to Maureen who proposes “(1) population (2) country – legitimacy”
Toledo is a great example of Ohio being the largest Toledo but Spain being the oldest. So, Toledo, Ohio would “win” which means free speech would win since Toledo, Ohio is located in a jurisdiction that prevents governments from stifling the speech of its citizens. But does that make Toledo, Spain any less legitimate? The answer, in my mind, is “no” since neither place has any legitimate claim to the word “Toledo” sufficient to keep it from being written as a top level domain name.
Folks, I think we have to stop trying to create rights for governments that they haven’t even legislated for themselves. ICANN is not the place to introduce new legislation – the community has enough trouble on our hands just trying to get ICANN’s policies in alignment with actual laws. It doesn’t do us any good to cook up compliance with non-existent laws – thus over engineering the next round and setting it up for confusion disputes, and extra costs.
Best, Paul
Places[edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi... ] Canada[edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi... ] · Paris, Ontario https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Ontario , a community · Paris, Yukon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Yukon , a former community United States[edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi... ] · Paris, Arkansas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Arkansas , a city · Paris, Idaho https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Idaho , a city · Paris, Illinois https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Illinois , a city · Paris, Indiana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Indiana , an unincorporated community · Paris, Iowa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Iowa , an unincorporated community · Paris, Kentucky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Kentucky , a city · Paris, Maine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Maine , a town · Paris, an unincorporated community in Green Charter Township, Michigan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Charter_Township,_Michigan · Paris, Mississippi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Mississippi , an unincorporated community · Paris, Missouri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Missouri , a city · Paris, New Hampshire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_New_Hampshire , an unincorporated community · Paris, New York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_New_York , a town · Paris, Portage County, Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Portage_County,_Ohio , an unincorporated community · Paris, Stark County, Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Stark_County,_Ohio , an unincorporated community · Paris, Oregon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Oregon , an unincorporated community · Paris, Pennsylvania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Pennsylvania , a census-designated place · Paris, Tennessee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Tennessee , a city · Paris, Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Texas , a city · Paris, Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Virginia , an unincorporated community · Paris, Wisconsin (disambiguation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Wisconsin_(disambiguation) , several Wisconsin localities · Paris Township (disambiguation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Township_(disambiguation) , several US localities · Beresford, South Dakota https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beresford,_South_Dakota , a city formerly called Paris · Loraine, California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loraine,_California , an unincorporated community formerly called Paris · Paris Mountain, South Carolina - see Paris Mountain State Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Mountain_State_Park · Paris Mountain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Mountain , Virginia Other[edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi... ] · Paris, Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Denmark , a hamlet in Jutland · Paris, Kiribati https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Kiribati , in the central Pacific Ocean · París, Herrera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par%C3%ADs,_Herrera , Panama, a corregimiento or subdistrict · Paris Basin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Basin , a geological region of France · Paris Peak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peak , Anvers Island, Antarctica · 3317 Paris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3317_Paris , a minor planet named after the legendary figure of the Trojan War
Belize[edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=2&edit... ] · Toledo District https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_District · Toledo Settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_Settlement Brazil[edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=3&edit... ] · Toledo, Minas Gerais https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Minas_Gerais · Toledo, Paraná https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Paran%C3%A1 Colombia[edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=4&edit... ] · Toledo, Norte de Santander https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Norte_de_Santander Philippines[edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=5&edit... ] · Toledo, Cebu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Cebu Spain[edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=6&edit... ] · Taifa of Toledo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taifa_of_Toledo (1010-1085) · Kingdom of Toledo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Toledo (1085–1833) · Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toledo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Toledo · Toledo (Spanish Congress electoral district) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_(Spanish_Congress_electoral_district) United States[edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=7&edit... ] · Toledo, Illinois https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Illinois , a village · Toledo, Iowa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Iowa , a small town · Toledo, Kansas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Kansas , an unincorporated community · Toledo, Callaway County, Missouri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Callaway_County,_Missouri , an unincorporated community · Toledo, Ozark County, Missouri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ozark_County,_Missouri , an unincorporated community · Toledo, Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ohio · Toledo, Oregon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Oregon , a small town · Toledo, Washington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Washington , a small city · Toldeo, Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toldeo,_Texas&action=edit&redlink... , a small town Uruguay[edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=8&edit... ] · Toledo, Uruguay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Uruguay
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org > On Behalf Of Kris Seeburn Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 2:39 PM To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com > Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
I was rethinking this and a way forward could be at this point taking capitals/cities into a second round. We still need to think business models as well. So at this point in time we could move Geonames to the three letter ISO and also country names in full as set out in ISO / UN recognition as well.
The population size could be very well thought of in a second phase of this workings. The longer we take to get to the other bits we may be stalling the whole process as well.So my take is get the first of these moving ahead. I was stating islands as i can take Seychelles has an overall population as a country of around 95,000 so imagine it’s capital “VICTORIA” or it’s other main Hub “MAHE”. There are also other countries or Islands we may have to think and cater for.
So my suggestion is to take into consideration the population size for sure but perhaps add a second variable which would be the country itself. Big countries in general may understand that you cannot just use or take names of capitals or other cities just like that without Govt approval. But the issue remains the awareness that needs to go down to ensure the required understanding.
So perhaps two variables should be (1) population (2) country - legitimacy — perhaps that may go better with GAC as well as many others.
My two cents.
> > > > On Jul 20, 2018, at 22:56, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com > wrote:
+1 seems a very good argument to me
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > Alex
Sounds like a pretty good way forward. Perhaps as you say population size should also be based on the country applying as some are also islands and may not be having a large population like New York, Paris and loads of others.
kris
> > > > > > On Jul 20, 2018, at 21:22, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin > wrote:
Hi group,
during the last call and in its chat were some serious conflations of facts. Let me explain the fact base on the floated examples of “.bingo”, “.paris” and I am adding “.clearwater” (“Clearwater” being a placeholder for any “city” like “Clearwater” in Florida which has 100k+ inhabitants, is probably know by every single American and every single German, might be confused with “unspoiled water” – but Google finds obviously ONLY city related content.)
We had a new gTLD round. It was in 2012 – applicants had to follow the rules of the application guidelines for it. That’s our base. The rules are quite specific and it would be nice if group members read them at least ONCE (the chat contributions made it painful clear that not everybody here has read the city related new gTLD policies of the 2012 AGB).
· BINGO: If in 2012 some brand or generic term applicant had applied for .bingo and there would be a non-capital city “Bingo”; that city would NOT have to be asked for Government support if .bingo was declared as non-geo use application! The notion that every city “Bingo” had to be asked for permission is ridiculous and bares any fact basis. · .paris: Any applicant for any city or brand “PARIS” would have been required to get the approval of the French Capital. To my understanding if the geo-use was intended then from all other places that qualify as “city” as well! We might look into the formulation “relevant Government” and “associated with the city name”: Paris Texas has 25k people, is a city, and the city’s name is “Texas”. To my understanding any application that declares geo-use (even if by the French capital) they would have had to acquire Government support from Paris, TX as well (please discuss, please correct me if you identify evidence to the contrary). I do not see that the French capital was prioritized over Paris, TX. · .clearwater: In the call somebody questioned why “The City” (some city) had any fundamental issues if a gTLD like “.clearwater” (which I use as a fictional example for any small city) was applied for by e.g. a beverage company with a brand “CLEAR WATER”. I am not going to speak on behalf of cites (as in “government bodies”): maybe some GAC member could do that! I am caring about the CONSTITUENTS in that city! The businesses. The People! The organizations. It is THOSE who have a potentially terrible loss: YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME. It can’t be that the marketing desire of a beverage brand tops the freedom of expression and identity of tens or worse HUNDREDS of thousands of citizens!
So all in all: Brands and generic applicants faced more or less ZERO “resistance” in the 2012 AGB – as they could always claim the non-geo use. What is being discussed currently (and yes for full disclosure: I am the initiator of that idea): · In the 2012 AGB we already eliminated the non-geo use for capitals and 3166 Alpha-2 regions! · BIG cities are as important – and too many people and stakeholders would suffer from city name grabbing on top-level in the DNS · The solution is to elevate at least sizeable cities to the protection level of capital cities! · A cut-off measure has to be defined – e.g. population size
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org ] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 12:10 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (11 July). 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 attached slides as well as the Working Document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRU... https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google... .
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
> > > > >
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin...
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
<KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
> > > >
> > >
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin...
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
<image001.gif>
--------------------------------------------- The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> >
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
PS: Robin: Permissionless innovation and freedom of speech should be about something more than just hijacking other peoples' place names. This is about asking the ICANN community to recognise and respect the interests of present and future Internet users, world wide. It has very little to do with governments. CW
El 20 de julio de 2018 a las 22:31 Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> escribió:
I completely agree and add there is nothing to stop any locality from applying for a string, should they wish too.
Bestowing on anyone (including govts) the automatic right to prevent a string by requiring permission to use a word is antithetical to the principle of "permissionless innovation”, a key principle for a free and open Internet (and big reason for its success).
Robin
> > On Jul 20, 2018, at 1:22 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com > wrote:
+1 for this. The discussion continues to make me think that any solution we would propose would only be arbitrary, capable of rent-seeking, and in the end utterly unworkable.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/ My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org > On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 4:02 PM To: Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com >; Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com > Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
Thanks Alexander.
Just to clarify the record, I didn’t suggest in the call that .bingo had to seek approvals from all those cities in the last round. It was introduced as an example of how ridiculous this can get if we go down the slippery slope of expanding censorship in the top level any further than it has already been extended. Perhaps something was lost in the translation.
Regarding Paris, there are dozens of places that bear that name (which originated in Greek mythology, by the way, and not in France). I’ve copied them at the end. Under a strict reading of the AGB from the last round, an applicant would have had to get a letter from the government of each of these places. A very silly rule.
Regarding your “Clearwater” place holder, let’s swap in Toledo instead. Toledo, Spain has been around since about the time of Christ and currently has a population of 83,000. Toledo, Ohio, has been around only since 1833 but has a population of nearly 651,429, many times that of the little city in Spain. This is not even to mention the over a dozen other places named Toledo. Your suggestion that a GAC rep may speak for the people of such cities implies that there would be some GAC approval process, again for dozens of places, none of which has any more right to the word “Toledo” than the next place. So your “Clearwater” scenario is named exactly backwards– it muddies the waters, it doesn’t clear them.
None of the above scenarios lead to simplicity or predictability, two of our core principles.
Also, thanks to Maureen who proposes “(1) population (2) country – legitimacy”
Toledo is a great example of Ohio being the largest Toledo but Spain being the oldest. So, Toledo, Ohio would “win” which means free speech would win since Toledo, Ohio is located in a jurisdiction that prevents governments from stifling the speech of its citizens. But does that make Toledo, Spain any less legitimate? The answer, in my mind, is “no” since neither place has any legitimate claim to the word “Toledo” sufficient to keep it from being written as a top level domain name.
Folks, I think we have to stop trying to create rights for governments that they haven’t even legislated for themselves. ICANN is not the place to introduce new legislation – the community has enough trouble on our hands just trying to get ICANN’s policies in alignment with actual laws. It doesn’t do us any good to cook up compliance with non-existent laws – thus over engineering the next round and setting it up for confusion disputes, and extra costs.
Best, Paul
Places[edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi... ] Canada[edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi... ] · Paris, Ontario https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Ontario , a community · Paris, Yukon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Yukon , a former community United States[edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi... ] · Paris, Arkansas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Arkansas , a city · Paris, Idaho https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Idaho , a city · Paris, Illinois https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Illinois , a city · Paris, Indiana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Indiana , an unincorporated community · Paris, Iowa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Iowa , an unincorporated community · Paris, Kentucky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Kentucky , a city · Paris, Maine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Maine , a town · Paris, an unincorporated community in Green Charter Township, Michigan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Charter_Township,_Michigan · Paris, Mississippi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Mississippi , an unincorporated community · Paris, Missouri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Missouri , a city · Paris, New Hampshire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_New_Hampshire , an unincorporated community · Paris, New York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_New_York , a town · Paris, Portage County, Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Portage_County,_Ohio , an unincorporated community · Paris, Stark County, Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Stark_County,_Ohio , an unincorporated community · Paris, Oregon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Oregon , an unincorporated community · Paris, Pennsylvania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Pennsylvania , a census-designated place · Paris, Tennessee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Tennessee , a city · Paris, Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Texas , a city · Paris, Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Virginia , an unincorporated community · Paris, Wisconsin (disambiguation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Wisconsin_(disambiguation) , several Wisconsin localities · Paris Township (disambiguation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Township_(disambiguation) , several US localities · Beresford, South Dakota https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beresford,_South_Dakota , a city formerly called Paris · Loraine, California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loraine,_California , an unincorporated community formerly called Paris · Paris Mountain, South Carolina - see Paris Mountain State Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Mountain_State_Park · Paris Mountain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Mountain , Virginia Other[edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi... ] · Paris, Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Denmark , a hamlet in Jutland · Paris, Kiribati https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Kiribati , in the central Pacific Ocean · París, Herrera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par%C3%ADs,_Herrera , Panama, a corregimiento or subdistrict · Paris Basin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Basin , a geological region of France · Paris Peak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peak , Anvers Island, Antarctica · 3317 Paris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3317_Paris , a minor planet named after the legendary figure of the Trojan War
Belize[edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=2&edit... ] · Toledo District https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_District · Toledo Settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_Settlement Brazil[edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=3&edit... ] · Toledo, Minas Gerais https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Minas_Gerais · Toledo, Paraná https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Paran%C3%A1 Colombia[edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=4&edit... ] · Toledo, Norte de Santander https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Norte_de_Santander Philippines[edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=5&edit... ] · Toledo, Cebu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Cebu Spain[edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=6&edit... ] · Taifa of Toledo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taifa_of_Toledo (1010-1085) · Kingdom of Toledo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Toledo (1085–1833) · Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toledo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Toledo · Toledo (Spanish Congress electoral district) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_(Spanish_Congress_electoral_district) United States[edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=7&edit... ] · Toledo, Illinois https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Illinois , a village · Toledo, Iowa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Iowa , a small town · Toledo, Kansas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Kansas , an unincorporated community · Toledo, Callaway County, Missouri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Callaway_County,_Missouri , an unincorporated community · Toledo, Ozark County, Missouri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ozark_County,_Missouri , an unincorporated community · Toledo, Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ohio · Toledo, Oregon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Oregon , a small town · Toledo, Washington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Washington , a small city · Toldeo, Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toldeo,_Texas&action=edit&redlink... , a small town Uruguay[edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=8&edit... ] · Toledo, Uruguay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Uruguay
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org > On Behalf Of Kris Seeburn Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 2:39 PM To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com > Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
I was rethinking this and a way forward could be at this point taking capitals/cities into a second round. We still need to think business models as well. So at this point in time we could move Geonames to the three letter ISO and also country names in full as set out in ISO / UN recognition as well.
The population size could be very well thought of in a second phase of this workings. The longer we take to get to the other bits we may be stalling the whole process as well.So my take is get the first of these moving ahead. I was stating islands as i can take Seychelles has an overall population as a country of around 95,000 so imagine it’s capital “VICTORIA” or it’s other main Hub “MAHE”. There are also other countries or Islands we may have to think and cater for.
So my suggestion is to take into consideration the population size for sure but perhaps add a second variable which would be the country itself. Big countries in general may understand that you cannot just use or take names of capitals or other cities just like that without Govt approval. But the issue remains the awareness that needs to go down to ensure the required understanding.
So perhaps two variables should be (1) population (2) country - legitimacy — perhaps that may go better with GAC as well as many others.
My two cents.
> > > On Jul 20, 2018, at 22:56, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com > wrote:
+1 seems a very good argument to me
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > Alex
Sounds like a pretty good way forward. Perhaps as you say population size should also be based on the country applying as some are also islands and may not be having a large population like New York, Paris and loads of others.
kris
> > > > > On Jul 20, 2018, at 21:22, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin > wrote:
Hi group,
during the last call and in its chat were some serious conflations of facts. Let me explain the fact base on the floated examples of “.bingo”, “.paris” and I am adding “.clearwater” (“Clearwater” being a placeholder for any “city” like “Clearwater” in Florida which has 100k+ inhabitants, is probably know by every single American and every single German, might be confused with “unspoiled water” – but Google finds obviously ONLY city related content.)
We had a new gTLD round. It was in 2012 – applicants had to follow the rules of the application guidelines for it. That’s our base. The rules are quite specific and it would be nice if group members read them at least ONCE (the chat contributions made it painful clear that not everybody here has read the city related new gTLD policies of the 2012 AGB).
· BINGO: If in 2012 some brand or generic term applicant had applied for .bingo and there would be a non-capital city “Bingo”; that city would NOT have to be asked for Government support if .bingo was declared as non-geo use application! The notion that every city “Bingo” had to be asked for permission is ridiculous and bares any fact basis. · .paris: Any applicant for any city or brand “PARIS” would have been required to get the approval of the French Capital. To my understanding if the geo-use was intended then from all other places that qualify as “city” as well! We might look into the formulation “relevant Government” and “associated with the city name”: Paris Texas has 25k people, is a city, and the city’s name is “Texas”. To my understanding any application that declares geo-use (even if by the French capital) they would have had to acquire Government support from Paris, TX as well (please discuss, please correct me if you identify evidence to the contrary). I do not see that the French capital was prioritized over Paris, TX. · .clearwater: In the call somebody questioned why “The City” (some city) had any fundamental issues if a gTLD like “.clearwater” (which I use as a fictional example for any small city) was applied for by e.g. a beverage company with a brand “CLEAR WATER”. I am not going to speak on behalf of cites (as in “government bodies”): maybe some GAC member could do that! I am caring about the CONSTITUENTS in that city! The businesses. The People! The organizations. It is THOSE who have a potentially terrible loss: YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME. It can’t be that the marketing desire of a beverage brand tops the freedom of expression and identity of tens or worse HUNDREDS of thousands of citizens!
So all in all: Brands and generic applicants faced more or less ZERO “resistance” in the 2012 AGB – as they could always claim the non-geo use. What is being discussed currently (and yes for full disclosure: I am the initiator of that idea): · In the 2012 AGB we already eliminated the non-geo use for capitals and 3166 Alpha-2 regions! · BIG cities are as important – and too many people and stakeholders would suffer from city name grabbing on top-level in the DNS · The solution is to elevate at least sizeable cities to the protection level of capital cities! · A cut-off measure has to be defined – e.g. population size
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org ] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 12:10 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (11 July). 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 attached slides as well as the Working Document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRU... https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google... .
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
> > > >
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin...
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
<KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
> > >
> >
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin...
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
<image001.gif>
--------------------------------------------- The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
+1 in support of Paul’s statement. Best, Brian ________________________________________ Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group 1200 17th St NW, Ste 501 Washington, DC 20036 brian@winterfeldt.law<mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 903 4422 On Jul 20, 2018, at 4:02 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Thanks Alexander. Just to clarify the record, I didn’t suggest in the call that .bingo had to seek approvals from all those cities in the last round. It was introduced as an example of how ridiculous this can get if we go down the slippery slope of expanding censorship in the top level any further than it has already been extended. Perhaps something was lost in the translation. Regarding Paris, there are dozens of places that bear that name (which originated in Greek mythology, by the way, and not in France). I’ve copied them at the end. Under a strict reading of the AGB from the last round, an applicant would have had to get a letter from the government of each of these places. A very silly rule. Regarding your “Clearwater” place holder, let’s swap in Toledo instead. Toledo, Spain has been around since about the time of Christ and currently has a population of 83,000. Toledo, Ohio, has been around only since 1833 but has a population of nearly 651,429, many times that of the little city in Spain. This is not even to mention the over a dozen other places named Toledo. Your suggestion that a GAC rep may speak for the people of such cities implies that there would be some GAC approval process, again for dozens of places, none of which has any more right to the word “Toledo” than the next place. So your “Clearwater” scenario is named exactly backwards– it muddies the waters, it doesn’t clear them. None of the above scenarios lead to simplicity or predictability, two of our core principles. Also, thanks to Maureen who proposes “(1) population (2) country – legitimacy” Toledo is a great example of Ohio being the largest Toledo but Spain being the oldest. So, Toledo, Ohio would “win” which means free speech would win since Toledo, Ohio is located in a jurisdiction that prevents governments from stifling the speech of its citizens. But does that make Toledo, Spain any less legitimate? The answer, in my mind, is “no” since neither place has any legitimate claim to the word “Toledo” sufficient to keep it from being written as a top level domain name. Folks, I think we have to stop trying to create rights for governments that they haven’t even legislated for themselves. ICANN is not the place to introduce new legislation – the community has enough trouble on our hands just trying to get ICANN’s policies in alignment with actual laws. It doesn’t do us any good to cook up compliance with non-existent laws – thus over engineering the next round and setting it up for confusion disputes, and extra costs. Best, Paul Places[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...>] Canada[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...>] · Paris, Ontario<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Ontario>, a community · Paris, Yukon<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Yukon>, a former community United States[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...>] · Paris, Arkansas<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Arkansas>, a city · Paris, Idaho<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Idaho>, a city · Paris, Illinois<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Illinois>, a city · Paris, Indiana<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Indiana>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Iowa<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Iowa>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Kentucky<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Kentucky>, a city · Paris, Maine<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Maine>, a town · Paris, an unincorporated community in Green Charter Township, Michigan<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Charter_Township,_Michigan> · Paris, Mississippi<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Mississippi>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Missouri<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Missouri>, a city · Paris, New Hampshire<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_New_Hampshire>, an unincorporated community · Paris, New York<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_New_York>, a town · Paris, Portage County, Ohio<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Portage_County,_Ohio>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Stark County, Ohio<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Stark_County,_Ohio>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Oregon<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Oregon>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Pennsylvania<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Pennsylvania>, a census-designated place · Paris, Tennessee<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Tennessee>, a city · Paris, Texas<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Texas>, a city · Paris, Virginia<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Virginia>, an unincorporated community · Paris, Wisconsin (disambiguation)<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Wisconsin_(disambiguation)>, several Wisconsin localities · Paris Township (disambiguation)<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Township_(disambiguation)>, several US localities · Beresford, South Dakota<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beresford,_South_Dakota>, a city formerly called Paris · Loraine, California<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loraine,_California>, an unincorporated community formerly called Paris · Paris Mountain, South Carolina - see Paris Mountain State Park<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Mountain_State_Park> · Paris Mountain<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Mountain>, Virginia Other[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...>] · Paris, Denmark<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Denmark>, a hamlet in Jutland · Paris, Kiribati<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Kiribati>, in the central Pacific Ocean · París, Herrera<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par%C3%ADs,_Herrera>, Panama, a corregimiento or subdistrict · Paris Basin<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Basin>, a geological region of France · Paris Peak<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peak>, Anvers Island, Antarctica · 3317 Paris<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3317_Paris>, a minor planet named after the legendary figure of the Trojan War Belize[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=2&edit...>] · Toledo District<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_District> · Toledo Settlement<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_Settlement> Brazil[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=3&edit...>] · Toledo, Minas Gerais<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Minas_Gerais> · Toledo, Paraná<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Paran%C3%A1> Colombia[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=4&edit...>] · Toledo, Norte de Santander<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Norte_de_Santander> Philippines[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=5&edit...>] · Toledo, Cebu<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Cebu> Spain[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=6&edit...>] · Taifa of Toledo<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taifa_of_Toledo> (1010-1085) · Kingdom of Toledo<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Toledo> (1085–1833) · Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toledo<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Toledo> · Toledo (Spanish Congress electoral district)<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_(Spanish_Congress_electoral_district)> United States[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=7&edit...>] · Toledo, Illinois<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Illinois>, a village · Toledo, Iowa<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Iowa>, a small town · Toledo, Kansas<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Kansas>, an unincorporated community · Toledo, Callaway County, Missouri<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Callaway_County,_Missouri>, an unincorporated community · Toledo, Ozark County, Missouri<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ozark_County,_Missouri>, an unincorporated community · Toledo, Ohio<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ohio> · Toledo, Oregon<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Oregon>, a small town · Toledo, Washington<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Washington>, a small city · Toldeo, Texas<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toldeo,_Texas&action=edit&redlink...>, a small town Uruguay[edit<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=8&edit...>] · Toledo, Uruguay<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Uruguay> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Kris Seeburn Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 2:39 PM To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018 I was rethinking this and a way forward could be at this point taking capitals/cities into a second round. We still need to think business models as well. So at this point in time we could move Geonames to the three letter ISO and also country names in full as set out in ISO / UN recognition as well. The population size could be very well thought of in a second phase of this workings. The longer we take to get to the other bits we may be stalling the whole process as well.So my take is get the first of these moving ahead. I was stating islands as i can take Seychelles has an overall population as a country of around 95,000 so imagine it’s capital “VICTORIA” or it’s other main Hub “MAHE”. There are also other countries or Islands we may have to think and cater for. So my suggestion is to take into consideration the population size for sure but perhaps add a second variable which would be the country itself. Big countries in general may understand that you cannot just use or take names of capitals or other cities just like that without Govt approval. But the issue remains the awareness that needs to go down to ensure the required understanding. So perhaps two variables should be (1) population (2) country - legitimacy — perhaps that may go better with GAC as well as many others. My two cents. On Jul 20, 2018, at 22:56, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: +1 seems a very good argument to me On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com>> wrote: Alex Sounds like a pretty good way forward. Perhaps as you say population size should also be based on the country applying as some are also islands and may not be having a large population like New York, Paris and loads of others. kris On Jul 20, 2018, at 21:22, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Hi group, during the last call and in its chat were some serious conflations of facts. Let me explain the fact base on the floated examples of “.bingo”, “.paris” and I am adding “.clearwater” (“Clearwater” being a placeholder for any “city” like “Clearwater” in Florida which has 100k+ inhabitants, is probably know by every single American and every single German, might be confused with “unspoiled water” – but Google finds obviously ONLY city related content.) We had a new gTLD round. It was in 2012 – applicants had to follow the rules of the application guidelines for it. That’s our base. The rules are quite specific and it would be nice if group members read them at least ONCE (the chat contributions made it painful clear that not everybody here has read the city related new gTLD policies of the 2012 AGB). • BINGO: If in 2012 some brand or generic term applicant had applied for .bingo and there would be a non-capital city “Bingo”; that city would NOT have to be asked for Government support if .bingo was declared as non-geo use application! The notion that every city “Bingo” had to be asked for permission is ridiculous and bares any fact basis. • .paris: Any applicant for any city or brand “PARIS” would have been required to get the approval of the French Capital. To my understanding if the geo-use was intended then from all other places that qualify as “city” as well! We might look into the formulation “relevant Government” and “associated with the city name”: Paris Texas has 25k people, is a city, and the city’s name is “Texas”. To my understanding any application that declares geo-use (even if by the French capital) they would have had to acquire Government support from Paris, TX as well (please discuss, please correct me if you identify evidence to the contrary). I do not see that the French capital was prioritized over Paris, TX. • .clearwater: In the call somebody questioned why “The City” (some city) had any fundamental issues if a gTLD like “.clearwater” (which I use as a fictional example for any small city) was applied for by e.g. a beverage company with a brand “CLEAR WATER”. I am not going to speak on behalf of cites (as in “government bodies”): maybe some GAC member could do that! I am caring about the CONSTITUENTS in that city! The businesses. The People! The organizations. It is THOSE who have a potentially terrible loss: YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME. It can’t be that the marketing desire of a beverage brand tops the freedom of expression and identity of tens or worse HUNDREDS of thousands of citizens! So all in all: Brands and generic applicants faced more or less ZERO “resistance” in the 2012 AGB – as they could always claim the non-geo use. What is being discussed currently (and yes for full disclosure: I am the initiator of that idea): • In the 2012 AGB we already eliminated the non-geo use for capitals and 3166 Alpha-2 regions! • BIG cities are as important – and too many people and stakeholders would suffer from city name grabbing on top-level in the DNS • The solution is to elevate at least sizeable cities to the protection level of capital cities! • A cut-off measure has to be defined – e.g. population size Thanks, Alexander Schubert From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 12:10 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018 Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (11 July). 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 attached slides as well as the Working Document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRUXAo/edit<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRUXAo%2Fedit&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cdb15f0d902484827682608d5ee7885ee%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636677123764221322&sdata=E1boSeyGtZsKbrr0Ac8d1sDn%2FAu5cwURV1QRYRHLsBo%3D&reserved=0>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cdb15f0d902484827682608d5ee7885ee%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636677123764221322&sdata=RRs2FEJ3ixxle4CLxPocJa1VFPRN6MDZpyxESkju9kE%3D&reserved=0> Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin...> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it" <KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cdb15f0d902484827682608d5ee7885ee%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636677123764221322&sdata=RRs2FEJ3ixxle4CLxPocJa1VFPRN6MDZpyxESkju9kE%3D&reserved=0> Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin...> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it" <image001.gif> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear Alexander, Thank you very much for the message, As usual you have logic in your insight. May I ask some question in line of your message please are Any applicant for any city or brand “PARIS” would have been required to get the approval of the French Capital. To my understanding if the geo-use was intended then from all other places that qualify as “city” as well! We might look into the formulation “relevant Government” and “associated with the city name”: Paris Texas has 25k people, is a city, and the city’s name is “Texas”. To my understanding any application that declares geo-use (even if by the French capital) they would have had to acquire Government support from Paris, TX as well (please discuss, please correct me if you identify evidence to the contrary). I do not see that the French capital was prioritized over Paris, TX. · .clearwater: In the call somebody questioned why “The City” (some city) had any fundamental issues if a gTLD like “.clearwater” (which I use as a fictional example for any small city) was applied for by e.g. a beverage company with a brand “CLEAR WATER”. I am not going to speak on behalf of cites (as in “government bodies”): maybe some GAC member could do that! I am caring about the CONSTITUENTS in that city! The businesses. The People! The organizations. It is THOSE who have a potentially terrible loss: YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME. It can’t be that the marketing desire of a beverage brand tops the freedom of expression and identity of tens or worse HUNDREDS of thousands of citizens! So all in all: Brands and generic applicants faced more or less ZERO “resistance” in the 2012 AGB – as they could always claim the non-geo use. What is being discussed currently (and yes for full disclosure: I am the initiator of that idea): · In the 2012 AGB we already eliminated the non-geo use for capitals and 3166 Alpha-2 regions! · BIG cities are as important – and too many people and stakeholders would suffer from city name grabbing on top-level in the DNS · The solution is to elevate at least sizeable cities to the protection level of capital cities! · A cut-off measure has to be defined – e.g. population size Thanks, Alexander Schubert On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 12:23 AM Brian Winterfeldt <Brian@winterfeldt.law> wrote:
+1 in support of Paul’s statement.
Best,
Brian
________________________________________
Brian J. Winterfeldt
Principal
Winterfeldt IP Group
1200 17th St NW, Ste 501
Washington, DC 20036
brian@winterfeldt.law
+1 202 903 4422
On Jul 20, 2018, at 4:02 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
Thanks Alexander.
Just to clarify the record, I didn’t suggest in the call that .bingo had to seek approvals from all those cities in the last round. It was introduced as an example of how ridiculous this can get if we go down the slippery slope of expanding censorship in the top level any further than it has already been extended. Perhaps something was lost in the translation.
Regarding Paris, there are dozens of places that bear that name (which originated in Greek mythology, by the way, and not in France). I’ve copied them at the end. Under a strict reading of the AGB from the last round, an applicant would have had to get a letter from the government of each of these places. A very silly rule.
Regarding your “Clearwater” place holder, let’s swap in Toledo instead. Toledo, Spain has been around since about the time of Christ and currently has a population of 83,000. Toledo, Ohio, has been around only since 1833 but has a population of nearly 651,429, many times that of the little city in Spain. This is not even to mention the over a dozen other places named Toledo. Your suggestion that a GAC rep may speak for the people of such cities implies that there would be some GAC approval process, again for dozens of places, none of which has any more right to the word “Toledo” than the next place. So your “Clearwater” scenario is named exactly backwards– it muddies the waters, it doesn’t clear them.
None of the above scenarios lead to simplicity or predictability, two of our core principles.
Also, thanks to Maureen who proposes “(1) population (2) country – legitimacy”
Toledo is a great example of Ohio being the largest Toledo but Spain being the oldest. So, Toledo, Ohio would “win” which means free speech would win since Toledo, Ohio is located in a jurisdiction that prevents governments from stifling the speech of its citizens. But does that make Toledo, Spain any less legitimate? The answer, in my mind, is “no” since neither place has any legitimate claim to the word “Toledo” sufficient to keep it from being written as a top level domain name.
Folks, I think we have to stop trying to create rights for governments that they haven’t even legislated for themselves. ICANN is not the place to introduce new legislation – the community has enough trouble on our hands just trying to get ICANN’s policies in alignment with actual laws. It doesn’t do us any good to cook up compliance with non-existent laws – thus over engineering the next round and setting it up for confusion disputes, and extra costs.
Best,
Paul
Places[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...> ]
*Canada*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...> ]
· Paris, Ontario <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Ontario>, a community
· Paris, Yukon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Yukon>, a former community
*United States*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...> ]
· Paris, Arkansas <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Arkansas>, a city
· Paris, Idaho <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Idaho>, a city
· Paris, Illinois <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Illinois>, a city
· Paris, Indiana <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Indiana>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Iowa <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Iowa>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Kentucky <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Kentucky>, a city
· Paris, Maine <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Maine>, a town
· Paris, an unincorporated community in Green Charter Township, Michigan <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Charter_Township,_Michigan>
· Paris, Mississippi <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Mississippi>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Missouri <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Missouri>, a city
· Paris, New Hampshire <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_New_Hampshire>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, New York <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_New_York>, a town
· Paris, Portage County, Ohio <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Portage_County,_Ohio>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Stark County, Ohio <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Stark_County,_Ohio>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Oregon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Oregon>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Pennsylvania <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Pennsylvania>, a census-designated place
· Paris, Tennessee <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Tennessee>, a city
· Paris, Texas <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Texas>, a city
· Paris, Virginia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Virginia>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Wisconsin (disambiguation) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Wisconsin_(disambiguation)>, several Wisconsin localities
· Paris Township (disambiguation) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Township_(disambiguation)>, several US localities
· Beresford, South Dakota <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beresford,_South_Dakota>, a city formerly called Paris
· Loraine, California <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loraine,_California>, an unincorporated community formerly called Paris
· Paris Mountain, South Carolina - see Paris Mountain State Park <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Mountain_State_Park>
· Paris Mountain <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Mountain>, Virginia
*Other*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...> ]
· Paris, Denmark <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Denmark>, a hamlet in Jutland
· Paris, Kiribati <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Kiribati>, in the central Pacific Ocean
· París, Herrera <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par%C3%ADs,_Herrera>, Panama, a *corregimiento* or subdistrict
· Paris Basin <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Basin>, a geological region of France
· Paris Peak <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peak>, Anvers Island, Antarctica
· 3317 Paris <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3317_Paris>, a minor planet named after the legendary figure of the Trojan War
*Belize*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=2&edit...> ]
· Toledo District <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_District>
· Toledo Settlement <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_Settlement>
*Brazil*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=3&edit...> ]
· Toledo, Minas Gerais <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Minas_Gerais>
· Toledo, Paraná <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Paran%C3%A1>
*Colombia*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=4&edit...> ]
· Toledo, Norte de Santander <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Norte_de_Santander>
*Philippines*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=5&edit...> ]
· Toledo, Cebu <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Cebu>
*Spain*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=6&edit...> ]
· Taifa of Toledo <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taifa_of_Toledo> (1010-1085)
· Kingdom of Toledo <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Toledo> (1085–1833)
· Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toledo <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Toledo>
· Toledo (Spanish Congress electoral district) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_(Spanish_Congress_electoral_district)>
*United States*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=7&edit...> ]
· Toledo, Illinois <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Illinois>, a village
· Toledo, Iowa <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Iowa>, a small town
· Toledo, Kansas <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Kansas>, an unincorporated community
· Toledo, Callaway County, Missouri <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Callaway_County,_Missouri>, an unincorporated community
· Toledo, Ozark County, Missouri <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ozark_County,_Missouri>, an unincorporated community
· Toledo, Ohio <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ohio>
· Toledo, Oregon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Oregon>, a small town
· Toledo, Washington <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Washington>, a small city
· Toldeo, Texas <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toldeo,_Texas&action=edit&redlink...>, a small town
*Uruguay*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=8&edit...> ]
· Toledo, Uruguay <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Uruguay>
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Kris Seeburn *Sent:* Friday, July 20, 2018 2:39 PM *To:* Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
I was rethinking this and a way forward could be at this point taking capitals/cities into a second round. We still need to think business models as well. So at this point in time we could move Geonames to the three letter ISO and also country names in full as set out in ISO / UN recognition as well.
The population size could be very well thought of in a second phase of this workings. The longer we take to get to the other bits we may be stalling the whole process as well.So my take is get the first of these moving ahead. I was stating islands as i can take Seychelles has an overall population as a country of around 95,000 so imagine it’s capital “VICTORIA” or it’s other main Hub “MAHE”. There are also other countries or Islands we may have to think and cater for.
So my suggestion is to take into consideration the population size for sure but perhaps add a second variable which would be the country itself. Big countries in general may understand that you cannot just use or take names of capitals or other cities just like that without Govt approval. But the issue remains the awareness that needs to go down to ensure the required understanding.
So perhaps two variables should be (1) population (2) country - legitimacy — perhaps that may go better with GAC as well as many others.
My two cents.
On Jul 20, 2018, at 22:56, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 seems a very good argument to me
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> wrote:
Alex
Sounds like a pretty good way forward. Perhaps as you say population size should also be based on the country applying as some are also islands and may not be having a large population like New York, Paris and loads of others.
kris
On Jul 20, 2018, at 21:22, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi group,
during the last call and in its chat were some serious conflations of facts. Let me explain the fact base on the floated examples of “.bingo”, “.paris” and I am adding “.clearwater” (“Clearwater” being a placeholder for any “city” like “Clearwater” in Florida which has 100k+ inhabitants, is probably know by every single American and every single German, might be confused with “unspoiled water” – but Google finds obviously ONLY city related content.)
We had a new gTLD round. It was in 2012 – applicants had to follow the rules of the application guidelines for it. That’s our base. The rules are quite specific and it would be nice if group members read them at least ONCE (the chat contributions made it painful clear that not everybody here has read the city related new gTLD policies of the 2012 AGB).
· BINGO: If in 2012 some brand or generic term applicant had applied for .bingo and there would be a non-capital city “Bingo”; that city would NOT have to be asked for Government support if .bingo was declared as non-geo use application! The notion that every city “Bingo” had to be asked for permission is ridiculous and bares any fact basis.
· .paris: Any applicant for any city or brand “PARIS” would have been required to get the approval of the French Capital. To my understanding if the geo-use was intended then from all other places that qualify as “city” as well! We might look into the formulation “relevant Government” and “associated with the city name”: Paris Texas has 25k people, is a city, and the city’s name is “Texas”. To my understanding any application that declares geo-use (even if by the French capital) they would have had to acquire Government support from Paris, TX as well (please discuss, please correct me if you identify evidence to the contrary). I do not see that the French capital was prioritized over Paris, TX.
· .clearwater: In the call somebody questioned why “The City” (some city) had any fundamental issues if a gTLD like “.clearwater” (which I use as a fictional example for any small city) was applied for by e.g. a beverage company with a brand “CLEAR WATER”. I am not going to speak on behalf of cites (as in “government bodies”): maybe some GAC member could do that! I am caring about the CONSTITUENTS in that city! The businesses. The People! The organizations. It is THOSE who have a potentially terrible loss: YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME. It can’t be that the marketing desire of a beverage brand tops the freedom of expression and identity of tens or worse HUNDREDS of thousands of citizens!
So all in all: Brands and generic applicants faced more or less ZERO “resistance” in the 2012 AGB – as they could always claim the non-geo use. What is being discussed currently (and yes for full disclosure: I am the initiator of that idea):
· In the 2012 AGB we already eliminated the non-geo use for capitals and 3166 Alpha-2 regions!
· BIG cities are as important – and too many people and stakeholders would suffer from city name grabbing on top-level in the DNS
· The solution is to elevate at least sizeable cities to the protection level of capital cities!
· A cut-off measure has to be defined – e.g. population size
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund *Sent:* Thursday, July 12, 2018 12:10 AM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (11 July). *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 attached slides as well as the Working Document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRU... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google...> .
Kind regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin...>
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
<KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin...>
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
<image001.gif>
------------------------------ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear Alexander, Thank you very much for the message, As usual you have logic in your insight. May I ask some question in line of your message please These are: *Any applicant for any city or brand “PARIS” would have been required to get the approval of the French Capital. To my understanding if the geo-use was intended then from all other places that qualify as “city” as well! We might look into the formulation “relevant Government” and “associated with the city name”: Paris Texas has 25k people, is a city, and the city’s name is “Texas”. To my understanding any application that declares geo-use (even if by the French capital) they would have had to acquire Government support from Paris, TX as well (please discuss, please correct me if you identify evidence to the contrary). I do not see that the French capital was prioritized over Paris, TX.* Comments In the example give;if Paris city in France provide its agreement but paris city in Texas disagrees, then how to proceed? *· .clearwater:In the call somebody questioned why “The City” (some city) had any fundamental issues if a gTLD like “.clearwater” (which I use as a fictional example for any small city) was applied for by e.g. a beverage company with a brand “CLEAR WATER”.I am not going to speak on behalf of cites (as in “government bodies”): maybe some GAC member could do that! I am caring about the CONSTITUENTS in that city! The businesses. The People! The organizations. It is THOSE who have a potentially terrible loss: YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME. It can’t be that the marketing desire of a beverage brand tops the freedom of expression and identity of tens or worse HUNDREDS of thousands of citizens!* Comment I concour with your arguments *So all in all: Brands and generic applicants faced more or less ZERO “resistance” in the 2012 AGB – as they could always claim the non-geo use. What is being discussed currently (and yes for full disclosure: I am the initiator of that idea):* *· In the 2012 AGB we already eliminated the non-geo use for capitals and 3166 Alpha-2 regions!* *· BIG cities are as important – and too many people and stakeholders would suffer from city name grabbing on top-level in the DNS* *· The solution is to elevate at least sizeable cities to the protection level of capital cities!* *· A cut-off measure has to be defined – e.g. population size* Comments What are criteria to determine the seizable cities,?The seizability is not limieted to population only, Historical heritage, cultural values are also to be taken into account. Small cities of today which heritated from large or super large cities of several hundres years ago should also be taken into account In greater Persia, cities such " Shoush", "Parargad", " Ekbatan"," Perpolis "and and arae examples of those cutural and historical heritage. The situation is old continents and new continents are different as far as geographic names are concerned. We need to find a middle ground criteria and basis to decide on the matter. Brand and commercial interest should not compromise historical ,social and cultural heritage. I am not defending any government's position I am merely talking about interests of the peole . Regards Kavouss Regards Kavouss On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 11:55 AM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Alexander,
Thank you very much for the message,
As usual you have logic in your insight.
May I ask some question in line of your message please
are
Any applicant for any city or brand “PARIS” would have been required to get the approval of the French Capital. To my understanding if the geo-use was intended then from all other places that qualify as “city” as well! We might look into the formulation “relevant Government” and “associated with the city name”: Paris Texas has 25k people, is a city, and the city’s name is “Texas”. To my understanding any application that declares geo-use (even if by the French capital) they would have had to acquire Government support from Paris, TX as well (please discuss, please correct me if you identify evidence to the contrary). I do not see that the French capital was prioritized over Paris, TX.
· .clearwater: In the call somebody questioned why “The City” (some city) had any fundamental issues if a gTLD like “.clearwater” (which I use as a fictional example for any small city) was applied for by e.g. a beverage company with a brand “CLEAR WATER”. I am not going to speak on behalf of cites (as in “government bodies”): maybe some GAC member could do that! I am caring about the CONSTITUENTS in that city! The businesses. The People! The organizations. It is THOSE who have a potentially terrible loss: YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME. It can’t be that the marketing desire of a beverage brand tops the freedom of expression and identity of tens or worse HUNDREDS of thousands of citizens!
So all in all: Brands and generic applicants faced more or less ZERO “resistance” in the 2012 AGB – as they could always claim the non-geo use. What is being discussed currently (and yes for full disclosure: I am the initiator of that idea):
· In the 2012 AGB we already eliminated the non-geo use for capitals and 3166 Alpha-2 regions!
· BIG cities are as important – and too many people and stakeholders would suffer from city name grabbing on top-level in the DNS
· The solution is to elevate at least sizeable cities to the protection level of capital cities!
· A cut-off measure has to be defined – e.g. population size
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 12:23 AM Brian Winterfeldt <Brian@winterfeldt.law> wrote:
+1 in support of Paul’s statement.
Best,
Brian
________________________________________
Brian J. Winterfeldt
Principal
Winterfeldt IP Group
1200 17th St NW, Ste 501
Washington, DC 20036
brian@winterfeldt.law
+1 202 903 4422
On Jul 20, 2018, at 4:02 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
Thanks Alexander.
Just to clarify the record, I didn’t suggest in the call that .bingo had to seek approvals from all those cities in the last round. It was introduced as an example of how ridiculous this can get if we go down the slippery slope of expanding censorship in the top level any further than it has already been extended. Perhaps something was lost in the translation.
Regarding Paris, there are dozens of places that bear that name (which originated in Greek mythology, by the way, and not in France). I’ve copied them at the end. Under a strict reading of the AGB from the last round, an applicant would have had to get a letter from the government of each of these places. A very silly rule.
Regarding your “Clearwater” place holder, let’s swap in Toledo instead. Toledo, Spain has been around since about the time of Christ and currently has a population of 83,000. Toledo, Ohio, has been around only since 1833 but has a population of nearly 651,429, many times that of the little city in Spain. This is not even to mention the over a dozen other places named Toledo. Your suggestion that a GAC rep may speak for the people of such cities implies that there would be some GAC approval process, again for dozens of places, none of which has any more right to the word “Toledo” than the next place. So your “Clearwater” scenario is named exactly backwards– it muddies the waters, it doesn’t clear them.
None of the above scenarios lead to simplicity or predictability, two of our core principles.
Also, thanks to Maureen who proposes “(1) population (2) country – legitimacy”
Toledo is a great example of Ohio being the largest Toledo but Spain being the oldest. So, Toledo, Ohio would “win” which means free speech would win since Toledo, Ohio is located in a jurisdiction that prevents governments from stifling the speech of its citizens. But does that make Toledo, Spain any less legitimate? The answer, in my mind, is “no” since neither place has any legitimate claim to the word “Toledo” sufficient to keep it from being written as a top level domain name.
Folks, I think we have to stop trying to create rights for governments that they haven’t even legislated for themselves. ICANN is not the place to introduce new legislation – the community has enough trouble on our hands just trying to get ICANN’s policies in alignment with actual laws. It doesn’t do us any good to cook up compliance with non-existent laws – thus over engineering the next round and setting it up for confusion disputes, and extra costs.
Best,
Paul
Places[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...> ]
*Canada*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...> ]
· Paris, Ontario <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Ontario>, a community
· Paris, Yukon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Yukon>, a former community
*United States*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...> ]
· Paris, Arkansas <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Arkansas>, a city
· Paris, Idaho <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Idaho>, a city
· Paris, Illinois <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Illinois>, a city
· Paris, Indiana <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Indiana>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Iowa <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Iowa>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Kentucky <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Kentucky>, a city
· Paris, Maine <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Maine>, a town
· Paris, an unincorporated community in Green Charter Township, Michigan <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Charter_Township,_Michigan>
· Paris, Mississippi <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Mississippi>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Missouri <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Missouri>, a city
· Paris, New Hampshire <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_New_Hampshire>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, New York <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_New_York>, a town
· Paris, Portage County, Ohio <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Portage_County,_Ohio>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Stark County, Ohio <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Stark_County,_Ohio>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Oregon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Oregon>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Pennsylvania <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Pennsylvania>, a census-designated place
· Paris, Tennessee <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Tennessee>, a city
· Paris, Texas <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Texas>, a city
· Paris, Virginia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Virginia>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Wisconsin (disambiguation) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Wisconsin_(disambiguation)>, several Wisconsin localities
· Paris Township (disambiguation) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Township_(disambiguation)>, several US localities
· Beresford, South Dakota <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beresford,_South_Dakota>, a city formerly called Paris
· Loraine, California <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loraine,_California>, an unincorporated community formerly called Paris
· Paris Mountain, South Carolina - see Paris Mountain State Park <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Mountain_State_Park>
· Paris Mountain <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Mountain>, Virginia
*Other*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...> ]
· Paris, Denmark <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Denmark>, a hamlet in Jutland
· Paris, Kiribati <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Kiribati>, in the central Pacific Ocean
· París, Herrera <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par%C3%ADs,_Herrera>, Panama, a *corregimiento* or subdistrict
· Paris Basin <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Basin>, a geological region of France
· Paris Peak <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peak>, Anvers Island, Antarctica
· 3317 Paris <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3317_Paris>, a minor planet named after the legendary figure of the Trojan War
*Belize*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=2&edit...> ]
· Toledo District <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_District>
· Toledo Settlement <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_Settlement>
*Brazil*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=3&edit...> ]
· Toledo, Minas Gerais <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Minas_Gerais>
· Toledo, Paraná <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Paran%C3%A1>
*Colombia*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=4&edit...> ]
· Toledo, Norte de Santander <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Norte_de_Santander>
*Philippines*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=5&edit...> ]
· Toledo, Cebu <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Cebu>
*Spain*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=6&edit...> ]
· Taifa of Toledo <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taifa_of_Toledo> (1010-1085)
· Kingdom of Toledo <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Toledo> (1085–1833)
· Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toledo <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Toledo>
· Toledo (Spanish Congress electoral district) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_(Spanish_Congress_electoral_district)>
*United States*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=7&edit...> ]
· Toledo, Illinois <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Illinois>, a village
· Toledo, Iowa <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Iowa>, a small town
· Toledo, Kansas <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Kansas>, an unincorporated community
· Toledo, Callaway County, Missouri <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Callaway_County,_Missouri>, an unincorporated community
· Toledo, Ozark County, Missouri <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ozark_County,_Missouri>, an unincorporated community
· Toledo, Ohio <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ohio>
· Toledo, Oregon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Oregon>, a small town
· Toledo, Washington <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Washington>, a small city
· Toldeo, Texas <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toldeo,_Texas&action=edit&redlink...>, a small town
*Uruguay*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=8&edit...> ]
· Toledo, Uruguay <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Uruguay>
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Kris Seeburn *Sent:* Friday, July 20, 2018 2:39 PM *To:* Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
I was rethinking this and a way forward could be at this point taking capitals/cities into a second round. We still need to think business models as well. So at this point in time we could move Geonames to the three letter ISO and also country names in full as set out in ISO / UN recognition as well.
The population size could be very well thought of in a second phase of this workings. The longer we take to get to the other bits we may be stalling the whole process as well.So my take is get the first of these moving ahead. I was stating islands as i can take Seychelles has an overall population as a country of around 95,000 so imagine it’s capital “VICTORIA” or it’s other main Hub “MAHE”. There are also other countries or Islands we may have to think and cater for.
So my suggestion is to take into consideration the population size for sure but perhaps add a second variable which would be the country itself. Big countries in general may understand that you cannot just use or take names of capitals or other cities just like that without Govt approval. But the issue remains the awareness that needs to go down to ensure the required understanding.
So perhaps two variables should be (1) population (2) country - legitimacy — perhaps that may go better with GAC as well as many others.
My two cents.
On Jul 20, 2018, at 22:56, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 seems a very good argument to me
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> wrote:
Alex
Sounds like a pretty good way forward. Perhaps as you say population size should also be based on the country applying as some are also islands and may not be having a large population like New York, Paris and loads of others.
kris
On Jul 20, 2018, at 21:22, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi group,
during the last call and in its chat were some serious conflations of facts. Let me explain the fact base on the floated examples of “.bingo”, “.paris” and I am adding “.clearwater” (“Clearwater” being a placeholder for any “city” like “Clearwater” in Florida which has 100k+ inhabitants, is probably know by every single American and every single German, might be confused with “unspoiled water” – but Google finds obviously ONLY city related content.)
We had a new gTLD round. It was in 2012 – applicants had to follow the rules of the application guidelines for it. That’s our base. The rules are quite specific and it would be nice if group members read them at least ONCE (the chat contributions made it painful clear that not everybody here has read the city related new gTLD policies of the 2012 AGB).
· BINGO: If in 2012 some brand or generic term applicant had applied for .bingo and there would be a non-capital city “Bingo”; that city would NOT have to be asked for Government support if .bingo was declared as non-geo use application! The notion that every city “Bingo” had to be asked for permission is ridiculous and bares any fact basis.
· .paris: Any applicant for any city or brand “PARIS” would have been required to get the approval of the French Capital. To my understanding if the geo-use was intended then from all other places that qualify as “city” as well! We might look into the formulation “relevant Government” and “associated with the city name”: Paris Texas has 25k people, is a city, and the city’s name is “Texas”. To my understanding any application that declares geo-use (even if by the French capital) they would have had to acquire Government support from Paris, TX as well (please discuss, please correct me if you identify evidence to the contrary). I do not see that the French capital was prioritized over Paris, TX.
· .clearwater: In the call somebody questioned why “The City” (some city) had any fundamental issues if a gTLD like “.clearwater” (which I use as a fictional example for any small city) was applied for by e.g. a beverage company with a brand “CLEAR WATER”. I am not going to speak on behalf of cites (as in “government bodies”): maybe some GAC member could do that! I am caring about the CONSTITUENTS in that city! The businesses. The People! The organizations. It is THOSE who have a potentially terrible loss: YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME. It can’t be that the marketing desire of a beverage brand tops the freedom of expression and identity of tens or worse HUNDREDS of thousands of citizens!
So all in all: Brands and generic applicants faced more or less ZERO “resistance” in the 2012 AGB – as they could always claim the non-geo use. What is being discussed currently (and yes for full disclosure: I am the initiator of that idea):
· In the 2012 AGB we already eliminated the non-geo use for capitals and 3166 Alpha-2 regions!
· BIG cities are as important – and too many people and stakeholders would suffer from city name grabbing on top-level in the DNS
· The solution is to elevate at least sizeable cities to the protection level of capital cities!
· A cut-off measure has to be defined – e.g. population size
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund *Sent:* Thursday, July 12, 2018 12:10 AM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (11 July). *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 attached slides as well as the Working Document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRU... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google...> .
Kind regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin...>
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
<KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin...>
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
<image001.gif>
------------------------------ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
I'd like to pick up and expand on one thing that Paul said: "we have to stop trying to create rights for governments that they haven’t even legislated for themselves. ICANN is not the place to introduce new legislation – the community has enough trouble on our hands just trying to get ICANN’s policies in alignment with actual laws. It doesn’t do us any good to cook up compliance with non-existent laws – thus over engineering the next round and setting it up for confusion disputes, and extra costs." The flip side is true as well -- we have to stop denigrating rights that do exist and using incorrect, inflammatory language while doing so. Alexander shouts in all caps "YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME" when discussing a "beverage brand" applying for the TLD "Clearwater" (a term that is also the name of a city (population 114,000)). Squatting is an incredibly pejorative term. Here's one definition of "SQUATTING", from Wikipedia: cybersquatting is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with *bad-faith intent to profit *from the goodwill of a trademark *belonging to someone else*. More generally, "squatting" means the practice of inhabiting someone else's property without their permission. This definition is similar to the one in the U.S. Anticybersquatting Protection Act (ACPA). On that basis, a declaration that "YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME" is tantamount to an accusation that any trademark owner with a brand coincident with a city name is violating the law, engaging in bad faith intent, seeking to make a profit to which they are not entitled, free-riding on the work and reputation of others. Perhaps some other meaning of "squatting" was intended, but my own understanding and the other definitions I reviewed seem pretty consistent. This is obviously factually wrong. Trademark rights are protected by law throughout the world and by at least two international treaties (Paris and Madrid). Trademark owners have legitimate rights, and any TLD application would be in furtherance of those rights -- clearly a "good faith" action based on a right "belonging to them." Any argument premised on the idea that trademark owners are "squatting" is doomed to lose, since it has no basis in fact or law. It is also extreme, insulting and polarizing. Continuing in this vein will be unhelpful. It is certainly unpersuasive and not conducive to compromise, and without persuasion and compromise there is no hope for consensus. Furthermore, this is not just about trademarks. It is not really about trademarks at all. It's about giving one potential applicant or applicants a superior privilege denied to any other potential applicant of any other type. But it goes further than that -- it gives non-applicants the privilege of deciding whether an applicant (of any type) can proceed, or if there are multiple applicants, which one can proceed. (This is one way in which Paris, France was privileged over Paris, Texas, since Paris, France was granted an absolute privilege, while Paris, Texas was only granted a contextual privilege.) I use the word "privilege" purposefully, since it would be incorrect and confusing to call it a "right" (because that would imply that it is based on an objective, externally-created right). I'll reiterate my earlier suggestion that we first look at the range of processes. A process that occurs at the very beginning of the application life-cycle and that gives one or a group of parties a reservation over a name if they ever wish to exercise it and veto power over others without any need to prove their own claim (much less the superiority of their claim over the claims of others) is at the extreme end of the spectrum of processes. Such processes should be saved for the most extreme of concerns, where it is objectively clear that the "reservation-holder"/"veto-holder" has a unique claim to the term, and any user of the term is beyond a reasonable doubt acting in bad faith. (Consider, for example, the full names of national Red Cross societies.) Less extreme processes should offer more opportunities to develop new ideas and ultimately, consensus. Best regards, Greg On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 6:45 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Alexander,
Thank you very much for the message,
As usual you have logic in your insight.
May I ask some question in line of your message please
These are:
*Any applicant for any city or brand “PARIS” would have been required to get the approval of the French Capital. To my understanding if the geo-use was intended then from all other places that qualify as “city” as well! We might look into the formulation “relevant Government” and “associated with the city name”: Paris Texas has 25k people, is a city, and the city’s name is “Texas”. To my understanding any application that declares geo-use (even if by the French capital) they would have had to acquire Government support from Paris, TX as well (please discuss, please correct me if you identify evidence to the contrary). I do not see that the French capital was prioritized over Paris, TX.*
Comments
In the example give;if Paris city in France provide its agreement but paris city in Texas disagrees, then how to proceed?
*· .clearwater:In the call somebody questioned why “The City” (some city) had any fundamental issues if a gTLD like “.clearwater” (which I use as a fictional example for any small city) was applied for by e.g. a beverage company with a brand “CLEAR WATER”.I am not going to speak on behalf of cites (as in “government bodies”): maybe some GAC member could do that! I am caring about the CONSTITUENTS in that city! The businesses. The People! The organizations. It is THOSE who have a potentially terrible loss: YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME. It can’t be that the marketing desire of a beverage brand tops the freedom of expression and identity of tens or worse HUNDREDS of thousands of citizens!*
Comment
I concour with your arguments
*So all in all: Brands and generic applicants faced more or less ZERO “resistance” in the 2012 AGB – as they could always claim the non-geo use. What is being discussed currently (and yes for full disclosure: I am the initiator of that idea):*
*· In the 2012 AGB we already eliminated the non-geo use for capitals and 3166 Alpha-2 regions!*
*· BIG cities are as important – and too many people and stakeholders would suffer from city name grabbing on top-level in the DNS*
*· The solution is to elevate at least sizeable cities to the protection level of capital cities!*
*· A cut-off measure has to be defined – e.g. population size*
Comments
What are criteria to determine the seizable cities,?The seizability is not limieted to population only, Historical heritage, cultural values are also to be taken into account.
Small cities of today which heritated from large or super large cities of several hundres years ago should also be taken into account
In greater Persia, cities such " Shoush", "Parargad", " Ekbatan"," Perpolis "and and arae examples of those cutural and historical heritage.
The situation is old continents and new continents are different as far as geographic names are concerned.
We need to find a middle ground criteria and basis to decide on the matter.
Brand and commercial interest should not compromise historical ,social and cultural heritage.
I am not defending any government's position I am merely talking about interests of the peole .
Regards
Kavouss
Regards
Kavouss
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 11:55 AM Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Alexander,
Thank you very much for the message,
As usual you have logic in your insight.
May I ask some question in line of your message please
are
Any applicant for any city or brand “PARIS” would have been required to get the approval of the French Capital. To my understanding if the geo-use was intended then from all other places that qualify as “city” as well! We might look into the formulation “relevant Government” and “associated with the city name”: Paris Texas has 25k people, is a city, and the city’s name is “Texas”. To my understanding any application that declares geo-use (even if by the French capital) they would have had to acquire Government support from Paris, TX as well (please discuss, please correct me if you identify evidence to the contrary). I do not see that the French capital was prioritized over Paris, TX.
· .clearwater: In the call somebody questioned why “The City” (some city) had any fundamental issues if a gTLD like “.clearwater” (which I use as a fictional example for any small city) was applied for by e.g. a beverage company with a brand “CLEAR WATER”. I am not going to speak on behalf of cites (as in “government bodies”): maybe some GAC member could do that! I am caring about the CONSTITUENTS in that city! The businesses. The People! The organizations. It is THOSE who have a potentially terrible loss: YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME. It can’t be that the marketing desire of a beverage brand tops the freedom of expression and identity of tens or worse HUNDREDS of thousands of citizens!
So all in all: Brands and generic applicants faced more or less ZERO “resistance” in the 2012 AGB – as they could always claim the non-geo use. What is being discussed currently (and yes for full disclosure: I am the initiator of that idea):
· In the 2012 AGB we already eliminated the non-geo use for capitals and 3166 Alpha-2 regions!
· BIG cities are as important – and too many people and stakeholders would suffer from city name grabbing on top-level in the DNS
· The solution is to elevate at least sizeable cities to the protection level of capital cities!
· A cut-off measure has to be defined – e.g. population size
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 12:23 AM Brian Winterfeldt <Brian@winterfeldt.law> wrote:
+1 in support of Paul’s statement.
Best,
Brian
________________________________________
Brian J. Winterfeldt
Principal
Winterfeldt IP Group
1200 17th St NW, Ste 501
Washington, DC 20036
brian@winterfeldt.law
+1 202 903 4422
On Jul 20, 2018, at 4:02 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
Thanks Alexander.
Just to clarify the record, I didn’t suggest in the call that .bingo had to seek approvals from all those cities in the last round. It was introduced as an example of how ridiculous this can get if we go down the slippery slope of expanding censorship in the top level any further than it has already been extended. Perhaps something was lost in the translation.
Regarding Paris, there are dozens of places that bear that name (which originated in Greek mythology, by the way, and not in France). I’ve copied them at the end. Under a strict reading of the AGB from the last round, an applicant would have had to get a letter from the government of each of these places. A very silly rule.
Regarding your “Clearwater” place holder, let’s swap in Toledo instead. Toledo, Spain has been around since about the time of Christ and currently has a population of 83,000. Toledo, Ohio, has been around only since 1833 but has a population of nearly 651,429, many times that of the little city in Spain. This is not even to mention the over a dozen other places named Toledo. Your suggestion that a GAC rep may speak for the people of such cities implies that there would be some GAC approval process, again for dozens of places, none of which has any more right to the word “Toledo” than the next place. So your “Clearwater” scenario is named exactly backwards– it muddies the waters, it doesn’t clear them.
None of the above scenarios lead to simplicity or predictability, two of our core principles.
Also, thanks to Maureen who proposes “(1) population (2) country – legitimacy”
Toledo is a great example of Ohio being the largest Toledo but Spain being the oldest. So, Toledo, Ohio would “win” which means free speech would win since Toledo, Ohio is located in a jurisdiction that prevents governments from stifling the speech of its citizens. But does that make Toledo, Spain any less legitimate? The answer, in my mind, is “no” since neither place has any legitimate claim to the word “Toledo” sufficient to keep it from being written as a top level domain name.
Folks, I think we have to stop trying to create rights for governments that they haven’t even legislated for themselves. ICANN is not the place to introduce new legislation – the community has enough trouble on our hands just trying to get ICANN’s policies in alignment with actual laws. It doesn’t do us any good to cook up compliance with non-existent laws – thus over engineering the next round and setting it up for confusion disputes, and extra costs.
Best,
Paul
Places[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...> ]
*Canada*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...> ]
· Paris, Ontario <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Ontario>, a community
· Paris, Yukon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Yukon>, a former community
*United States*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...> ]
· Paris, Arkansas <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Arkansas>, a city
· Paris, Idaho <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Idaho>, a city
· Paris, Illinois <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Illinois>, a city
· Paris, Indiana <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Indiana>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Iowa <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Iowa>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Kentucky <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Kentucky>, a city
· Paris, Maine <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Maine>, a town
· Paris, an unincorporated community in Green Charter Township, Michigan <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Charter_Township,_Michigan>
· Paris, Mississippi <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Mississippi>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Missouri <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Missouri>, a city
· Paris, New Hampshire <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_New_Hampshire>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, New York <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_New_York>, a town
· Paris, Portage County, Ohio <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Portage_County,_Ohio>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Stark County, Ohio <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Stark_County,_Ohio>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Oregon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Oregon>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Pennsylvania <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Pennsylvania>, a census-designated place
· Paris, Tennessee <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Tennessee>, a city
· Paris, Texas <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Texas>, a city
· Paris, Virginia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Virginia>, an unincorporated community
· Paris, Wisconsin (disambiguation) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Wisconsin_(disambiguation)>, several Wisconsin localities
· Paris Township (disambiguation) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Township_(disambiguation)>, several US localities
· Beresford, South Dakota <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beresford,_South_Dakota>, a city formerly called Paris
· Loraine, California <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loraine,_California>, an unincorporated community formerly called Paris
· Paris Mountain, South Carolina - see Paris Mountain State Park <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Mountain_State_Park>
· Paris Mountain <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Mountain>, Virginia
*Other*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_(disambiguation)&action=edi...> ]
· Paris, Denmark <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Denmark>, a hamlet in Jutland
· Paris, Kiribati <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Kiribati>, in the central Pacific Ocean
· París, Herrera <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par%C3%ADs,_Herrera>, Panama, a *corregimiento* or subdistrict
· Paris Basin <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Basin>, a geological region of France
· Paris Peak <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peak>, Anvers Island, Antarctica
· 3317 Paris <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3317_Paris>, a minor planet named after the legendary figure of the Trojan War
*Belize*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=2&edit...> ]
· Toledo District <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_District>
· Toledo Settlement <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_Settlement>
*Brazil*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=3&edit...> ]
· Toledo, Minas Gerais <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Minas_Gerais>
· Toledo, Paraná <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Paran%C3%A1>
*Colombia*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=4&edit...> ]
· Toledo, Norte de Santander <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Norte_de_Santander>
*Philippines*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=5&edit...> ]
· Toledo, Cebu <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Cebu>
*Spain*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=6&edit...> ]
· Taifa of Toledo <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taifa_of_Toledo> (1010-1085)
· Kingdom of Toledo <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Toledo> (1085–1833)
· Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toledo <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Toledo>
· Toledo (Spanish Congress electoral district) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_(Spanish_Congress_electoral_district)>
*United States*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=7&edit...> ]
· Toledo, Illinois <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Illinois>, a village
· Toledo, Iowa <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Iowa>, a small town
· Toledo, Kansas <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Kansas>, an unincorporated community
· Toledo, Callaway County, Missouri <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Callaway_County,_Missouri>, an unincorporated community
· Toledo, Ozark County, Missouri <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ozark_County,_Missouri>, an unincorporated community
· Toledo, Ohio <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ohio>
· Toledo, Oregon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Oregon>, a small town
· Toledo, Washington <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Washington>, a small city
· Toldeo, Texas <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toldeo,_Texas&action=edit&redlink...>, a small town
*Uruguay*[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toledo&action=edit§ion=8&edit...> ]
· Toledo, Uruguay <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Uruguay>
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Kris Seeburn *Sent:* Friday, July 20, 2018 2:39 PM *To:* Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
I was rethinking this and a way forward could be at this point taking capitals/cities into a second round. We still need to think business models as well. So at this point in time we could move Geonames to the three letter ISO and also country names in full as set out in ISO / UN recognition as well.
The population size could be very well thought of in a second phase of this workings. The longer we take to get to the other bits we may be stalling the whole process as well.So my take is get the first of these moving ahead. I was stating islands as i can take Seychelles has an overall population as a country of around 95,000 so imagine it’s capital “VICTORIA” or it’s other main Hub “MAHE”. There are also other countries or Islands we may have to think and cater for.
So my suggestion is to take into consideration the population size for sure but perhaps add a second variable which would be the country itself. Big countries in general may understand that you cannot just use or take names of capitals or other cities just like that without Govt approval. But the issue remains the awareness that needs to go down to ensure the required understanding.
So perhaps two variables should be (1) population (2) country - legitimacy — perhaps that may go better with GAC as well as many others.
My two cents.
On Jul 20, 2018, at 22:56, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 seems a very good argument to me
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> wrote:
Alex
Sounds like a pretty good way forward. Perhaps as you say population size should also be based on the country applying as some are also islands and may not be having a large population like New York, Paris and loads of others.
kris
On Jul 20, 2018, at 21:22, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi group,
during the last call and in its chat were some serious conflations of facts. Let me explain the fact base on the floated examples of “.bingo”, “.paris” and I am adding “.clearwater” (“Clearwater” being a placeholder for any “city” like “Clearwater” in Florida which has 100k+ inhabitants, is probably know by every single American and every single German, might be confused with “unspoiled water” – but Google finds obviously ONLY city related content.)
We had a new gTLD round. It was in 2012 – applicants had to follow the rules of the application guidelines for it. That’s our base. The rules are quite specific and it would be nice if group members read them at least ONCE (the chat contributions made it painful clear that not everybody here has read the city related new gTLD policies of the 2012 AGB).
· BINGO: If in 2012 some brand or generic term applicant had applied for .bingo and there would be a non-capital city “Bingo”; that city would NOT have to be asked for Government support if .bingo was declared as non-geo use application! The notion that every city “Bingo” had to be asked for permission is ridiculous and bares any fact basis.
· .paris: Any applicant for any city or brand “PARIS” would have been required to get the approval of the French Capital. To my understanding if the geo-use was intended then from all other places that qualify as “city” as well! We might look into the formulation “relevant Government” and “associated with the city name”: Paris Texas has 25k people, is a city, and the city’s name is “Texas”. To my understanding any application that declares geo-use (even if by the French capital) they would have had to acquire Government support from Paris, TX as well (please discuss, please correct me if you identify evidence to the contrary). I do not see that the French capital was prioritized over Paris, TX.
· .clearwater: In the call somebody questioned why “The City” (some city) had any fundamental issues if a gTLD like “.clearwater” (which I use as a fictional example for any small city) was applied for by e.g. a beverage company with a brand “CLEAR WATER”. I am not going to speak on behalf of cites (as in “government bodies”): maybe some GAC member could do that! I am caring about the CONSTITUENTS in that city! The businesses. The People! The organizations. It is THOSE who have a potentially terrible loss: YOU ARE SQUATTING ON THEIR NAME. It can’t be that the marketing desire of a beverage brand tops the freedom of expression and identity of tens or worse HUNDREDS of thousands of citizens!
So all in all: Brands and generic applicants faced more or less ZERO “resistance” in the 2012 AGB – as they could always claim the non-geo use. What is being discussed currently (and yes for full disclosure: I am the initiator of that idea):
· In the 2012 AGB we already eliminated the non-geo use for capitals and 3166 Alpha-2 regions!
· BIG cities are as important – and too many people and stakeholders would suffer from city name grabbing on top-level in the DNS
· The solution is to elevate at least sizeable cities to the protection level of capital cities!
· A cut-off measure has to be defined – e.g. population size
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund *Sent:* Thursday, July 12, 2018 12:10 AM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (11 July). *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 attached slides as well as the Working Document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJ sKyWX8WZXRUXAo/edit <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google...> .
Kind regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin...>
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
<KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin...>
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
<image001.gif>
------------------------------ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ 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 (14)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Brian Winterfeldt -
Greg Shatan -
Griffin Barnett -
Julie Hedlund -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Kris Seeburn -
lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson -
Marita Moll -
Maureen Hilyard -
McGrady, Paul D. -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Robin Gross