WT 5 Suggestion: a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name
Hi WT 5, Over the weekend I will submit a longer comment about the issue of the terminology in “recommendation 11” = non-capital cities (pages 4 and 5 of 21 in the word document “DRAFT - WT5 Initial Report - Sections C-E - 27.9.2018 - with comments-1”) The text right now states (unchanged from the 2012 AGB) that applicants ONLY require a “letter of non-objection” from the relevant authorities (city government) if: a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name I will elaborate on both: “use” (by the applicant) and “primarily”. In my mind BOTH will have to be reversed: * “foreseeable use” by the “REGISTRANTS” (rather than then “intended or projected use by the applicant entity”) * and not limited to “primary use”– but something like “significant use”. “Primarily” could arguably be considered “90% or more”. “Significant” would probably start at 20% or the like. The geo panel would need a few guidelines here as well! I don’t care what or what not an applicant is dreaming of – that needs to be determined by the geo panel! If it is a closed brand application: obviously the case is clear. If it is a generic term like “rock” (music) and there is a small city of a few thousand people named “Rock”: it’s kind of clear that the significant majority of registrants will use the 2nd level domains in connotation with “Rock Music” (or other generic meanings of the term “rock” like moon.rock). But if somebody were to apply for an open gTLD .chicago, .shanghai or .frankfurt and would claim that there is “no primary use associated with the city intended” – sorry: then the applicant is either delusional or tries to circumvent the necessity to acquire a letter of non-objection from the relevant city Government. This litmus test should NOT be outsourced to the APPLICANT – but it should be a task executed by the geo-panel. You can’t make the goat the gardener. At least WE (ICANN) should not do so. A brand or a real generic term based application that is only “circumstantially” targeting a small city – that is one thing. Somebody applying for “.shanghai” trying to play tricks on the geo panel (and in fact on the entire ICANN community, and the city community of Shanghai): not cool. Doesn’t fly. In my email I will also specifically explain why this is deemed a risk in the next round when there weren’t any notable problems in the 2012 round. If anybody is interested in hearing my notion on that problematic: shout out to me – and I will elaborate further. In that light I suggest the following language (this is so to speak the litmus test whether an applicant needs a letter of non-objection). An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if: 2012 AGB: a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name Revision: a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name This way a brand applicant should generally have no problem at all (closed gTLD). And an applicant for a generic dictionary term with broad utilization in the DNS should also have no problems. But we would prevent that lazy (or cheating) applicants skip the line – and go for a city name WITHOUT looping in the city. That would be unfair to applicants that get the city’s support, unfair to the city itself and unfair to the city’s constituents. Comments? It would be nice if members that support this language would make themselves heard. I would wish to see my recommendation prominently positioned in the report – that will only happen if my notion finds support. Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 12:43 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 - 03 October 2018 Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (03 October). 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. Please also find attached the referenced document in PDF and Word including comments. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items: Actions: ACTION ITEM: Preliminary recommendation #2: Add a footnote explaining what "character" means Notes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates 2. Draft Initial Report Sections: Preliminary Recommendations, Options, and Questions -- Comments about missing points -- the deliberation sections are still to come. This is just three sections of six. -- These are just arguments/recommendations/options at this point. -- The question is are these the right alternatives to put out for public comment. -- Questions for community input -- asking if these make sense and if anything is missing. -- Any content is subject to public comment. Preliminary recommendation #1: -- Use of the word "certain" suggests there are other strings we have not addressed. Suggest deleting the word. -- Can we make it clear here that we are talking about the AGB as written rather than as applied? I don't think we want as applied. Preliminary recommendation #2: -- Question: We don't give any explanation for why we are making this recommendation. Answer: The explanation will be reflected in the deliberations in the Initial Report. Section C is just the text of the deliberations. There will be much more text in Section F on the deliberations, including pros and cons. -- Looking at the last bullet point re: WT2 considering letter-number combinations -- should this also refer to number-number combinations? ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote explaining what "character" means. Preliminary recommendation #3: -- Move this into the category of strings that could be applied for with documentation on support or non-objection. -- See also comments from Christopher Wilkinson. -- There were discussions about how many of these are generic words as well as three-letter country codes. There was a wider debate that was outside of scope since it was ccNSO territory. With that in mind that is how we got to this recommendation. There was quite a lot of debate on this. -- Do we need to clarify that we are not recommending that any 3-character codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard be removed from delegation? Or that .com should be removed from delegation? -- Could have country names that could be delegated -- if Canada wants .canada there should be a pathway for them to getting it. -- Not in favor of allowing the delegation of geographic names for non-geographic use. Preliminary recommendation #4: -- The problem is that we have not gotten agreement on prior authorization and geographical use. As long as we have no consensus we have to maintain this restriction. Recommendation #5: -- Question: We say we recommend continuing something in the AGB but then we say it's a revision. Are we saying the AGB is inconsistent with GNSO policy? Answer: Some members would like to see whether there is a discrepancy between the AGB and the policy -- so saying it is consistent with the AGB, but is not consistent with the policy. -- Suggest: "As noted above this recommendation is consistent with the AGB as written [not "as drafted"] and doesn't address the issue of translation of these strings. However, this is a revision to GNSO policy..." -- Agree with the change above but not the order. You had the policy first and then the AGB. -- Maybe need an explanation somewhere at the beginning of the document. Preliminary recommendation #6 -- The only thing that is listed are the code --- there are no names associated with a code as "exceptionally reserved". -- This is a category that was in the 2012 AGB. -- Example is "UK" -- The code is reserved on the ISO site, but not the name. -- Append a list for the actual report. -- When there is something reserved it doesn't mean that it is connected the specific area where we talk about it. As to whether there is a list -- there used to be a list available on request from the ISO secretariat. Preliminary recommendation #7: No objections Preliminary recommendation #8: Third bullet has same issue as mentioned above -- No "exceptionally reserved" in the ISO 3166. Preliminary recommendation #9: No objections Preliminary recommendation #10: No objections Preliminary recommendation #11: Comments from the list: -- Discussion of intended use is included in the deliberation section, including pros and cons. -- Comment premature to include this preliminary recommendation as it stands. -- Consider the use of the word "primarily" as in "use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name". Maybe it isn't quite the right word, but we would want to avoid unintended consequences. Also, not clear what we mean by "use". This language was in the 2012 AGB -- not saying it was perfect, but don't recall this ever becoming an issue with a city name. Before we suggest changes let's look at what happened in 2012. -- One could also say if the applicant considers any use for the city he will have to get a letter from the city. -- There has been a lot of back and forth on this issue -- we need to really take a look at whether we want to foreclose a bunch of words. -- Ignores free expression rights to use words with geographic meaning in lawful ways. -- Could address by putting in a contractual requirement that is more specific continuing to not use a TLD in a geographic sense. Preliminary recommendation #12: -- Need a separate recommendation dealing with the currency codes (ISO 4217). they are very important in the financial markets. -- Don't support adding protection of the currency code. -- The sub-national place names should be open for reservation for non-geographic uses without a letter of support or non-objection. 2. ICANN63: -- Released 3 subsections of the Initial Report. Only a few comments so far. -- Idea is to give people another week to submit comment, and then we will release the full package of the Initial Report. -- Idea is that in addition to doing status updates and outreach at ICANN63 we'll have time to potentially get broader community input on issues, as well as to note what might be missing. -- Three sessions on Saturday morning with lunch at the last session.
Dear Alexander, Just one small comment on the text your proposed to be revised from the AGB 2012- "*a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name"* The WT5 is mandated to deal with issues that surround the treatment of geographic string identifiers at the top level, wouldn't 2nd level be out of scope? Kind regards, Dessalegn On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 5:49 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi WT 5,
Over the weekend I will submit a longer comment about the issue of the terminology in “recommendation 11” = non-capital cities (pages 4 and 5 of 21 in the word document “*DRAFT - WT5 Initial Report - Sections C-E - 27.9.2018 - with comments-1*”)
The text right now states (unchanged from the 2012 AGB) that applicants ONLY require a “letter of non-objection” from the relevant authorities (city government) if:
*a) It is clear from **applicant statements **within the application that the **applicant will use **the TLD **primarily **for purposes associated with the city name*
I will elaborate on both: “*use*” (by the applicant) and “*primarily*”. In my mind BOTH will have to be reversed:
· “foreseeable use” by the “REGISTRANTS” (rather than then “intended or projected use by the applicant entity”)
· and not limited to “primary use”– but something like “significant use”. “Primarily” could arguably be considered “90% or more”. “Significant” would probably start at 20% or the like. The geo panel would need a few guidelines here as well!
I don’t care what or what not an applicant is dreaming of – that needs to be determined by the geo panel! If it is a closed brand application: obviously the case is clear. If it is a generic term like “rock” (music) and there is a small city of a few thousand people named “Rock”: it’s kind of clear that the significant majority of registrants will use the 2nd level domains in connotation with “Rock Music” (or other generic meanings of the term “rock” like moon.rock). But if somebody were to apply for an open gTLD .chicago, .shanghai or .frankfurt and would claim that there is “no primary use associated with the city intended” – sorry: then the applicant is either delusional or tries to circumvent the necessity to acquire a letter of non-objection from the relevant city Government. This litmus test should NOT be outsourced to the APPLICANT – but it should be a task executed by the geo-panel. You can’t make the goat the gardener. At least WE (ICANN) should not do so. A brand or a real generic term based application that is only “circumstantially” targeting a small city – that is one thing. Somebody applying for “.shanghai” trying to play tricks on the geo panel (and in fact on the entire ICANN community, and the city community of Shanghai): not cool. Doesn’t fly.
In my email I will also specifically explain why this is deemed a risk in the next round when there weren’t any notable problems in the 2012 round. If anybody is interested in hearing my notion on that problematic: shout out to me – and I will elaborate further.
In that light I suggest the following language (this is so to speak the litmus test whether an applicant needs a letter of non-objection).
*An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if:*
2012 AGB: *a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name*
Revision: *a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name*
This way a brand applicant should generally have no problem at all (closed gTLD). And an applicant for a generic dictionary term with broad utilization in the DNS should also have no problems. But we would prevent that lazy (or cheating) applicants skip the line – and go for a city name WITHOUT looping in the city. That would be unfair to applicants that get the city’s support, unfair to the city itself and unfair to the city’s constituents.
Comments? It would be nice if members that support this language would make themselves heard. I would wish to see my recommendation prominently positioned in the report – that will only happen if my notion finds support.
Alexander.berlin
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund *Sent:* Thursday, October 04, 2018 12:43 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 - 03 October 2018
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (03 October). *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.*
Please also find attached the referenced document in PDF and Word including comments.
Kind regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Notes/Action Items:*
*Actions:*
ACTION ITEM: Preliminary recommendation #2: Add a footnote explaining what "character" means
*Notes:*
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates
2. Draft Initial Report Sections: Preliminary Recommendations, Options, and Questions
-- Comments about missing points -- the deliberation sections are still to come. This is just three sections of six.
-- These are just arguments/recommendations/options at this point.
-- The question is are these the right alternatives to put out for public comment.
-- Questions for community input -- asking if these make sense and if anything is missing.
-- Any content is subject to public comment.
Preliminary recommendation #1:
-- Use of the word "certain" suggests there are other strings we have not addressed. Suggest deleting the word.
-- Can we make it clear here that we are talking about the AGB as written rather than as applied? I don't think we want as applied.
Preliminary recommendation #2:
-- Question: We don't give any explanation for why we are making this recommendation. Answer: The explanation will be reflected in the deliberations in the Initial Report. Section C is just the text of the deliberations. There will be much more text in Section F on the deliberations, including pros and cons.
-- Looking at the last bullet point re: WT2 considering letter-number combinations -- should this also refer to number-number combinations?
ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote explaining what "character" means.
Preliminary recommendation #3:
-- Move this into the category of strings that could be applied for with documentation on support or non-objection.
-- See also comments from Christopher Wilkinson.
-- There were discussions about how many of these are generic words as well as three-letter country codes. There was a wider debate that was outside of scope since it was ccNSO territory. With that in mind that is how we got to this recommendation. There was quite a lot of debate on this.
-- Do we need to clarify that we are not recommending that any 3-character codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard be removed from delegation? Or that .com should be removed from delegation?
-- Could have country names that could be delegated -- if Canada wants .canada there should be a pathway for them to getting it.
-- Not in favor of allowing the delegation of geographic names for non-geographic use.
Preliminary recommendation #4:
-- The problem is that we have not gotten agreement on prior authorization and geographical use. As long as we have no consensus we have to maintain this restriction.
Recommendation #5:
-- Question: We say we recommend continuing something in the AGB but then we say it's a revision. Are we saying the AGB is inconsistent with GNSO policy? Answer: Some members would like to see whether there is a discrepancy between the AGB and the policy -- so saying it is consistent with the AGB, but is not consistent with the policy.
-- Suggest: "As noted above this recommendation is consistent with the AGB as written [not "as drafted"] and doesn't address the issue of translation of these strings. However, this is a revision to GNSO policy..."
-- Agree with the change above but not the order. You had the policy first and then the AGB.
-- Maybe need an explanation somewhere at the beginning of the document.
Preliminary recommendation #6
-- The only thing that is listed are the code --- there are no names associated with a code as "exceptionally reserved".
-- This is a category that was in the 2012 AGB.
-- Example is "UK" -- The code is reserved on the ISO site, but not the name.
-- Append a list for the actual report.
-- When there is something reserved it doesn't mean that it is connected the specific area where we talk about it. As to whether there is a list -- there used to be a list available on request from the ISO secretariat.
Preliminary recommendation #7: No objections
Preliminary recommendation #8: Third bullet has same issue as mentioned above -- No "exceptionally reserved" in the ISO 3166.
Preliminary recommendation #9: No objections
Preliminary recommendation #10: No objections
Preliminary recommendation #11:
Comments from the list:
-- Discussion of intended use is included in the deliberation section, including pros and cons.
-- Comment premature to include this preliminary recommendation as it stands.
-- Consider the use of the word "primarily" as in "use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name". Maybe it isn't quite the right word, but we would want to avoid unintended consequences. Also, not clear what we mean by "use". This language was in the 2012 AGB -- not saying it was perfect, but don't recall this ever becoming an issue with a city name. Before we suggest changes let's look at what happened in 2012.
-- One could also say if the applicant considers any use for the city he will have to get a letter from the city.
-- There has been a lot of back and forth on this issue -- we need to really take a look at whether we want to foreclose a bunch of words.
-- Ignores free expression rights to use words with geographic meaning in lawful ways.
-- Could address by putting in a contractual requirement that is more specific continuing to not use a TLD in a geographic sense.
Preliminary recommendation #12:
-- Need a separate recommendation dealing with the currency codes (ISO 4217). they are very important in the financial markets.
-- Don't support adding protection of the currency code.
-- The sub-national place names should be open for reservation for non-geographic uses without a letter of support or non-objection.
2. ICANN63:
-- Released 3 subsections of the Initial Report. Only a few comments so far.
-- Idea is to give people another week to submit comment, and then we will release the full package of the Initial Report.
-- Idea is that in addition to doing status updates and outreach at ICANN63 we'll have time to potentially get broader community input on issues, as well as to note what might be missing.
-- Three sessions on Saturday morning with lunch at the last session. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear Dessalegn, Thank you for the question! My notion was that we utilize the foreseeable (projectable) actual “use” by registrants to determine the association with the city name. But maybe it avoids confusion if we would shorten it to: An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if: 2012 AGB: a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name Revision: a) The geo name panel determines that it is foreseeable that registrants will use the TLD to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name The English here is slightly garbled (two time “that” – not very eloquent) but now it is as short as the original and 2nd level domains aren’t mentioned any more. And you are right: It’s mainly the gTLD portion of the domains registered by registrants that determine the “use”! Has anybody any suggestion for a better wording? Is there some support for the notion that we should NOT rely on “statements of the applicant” but rather have a neutral body (geo name panel) using “common sense” to determine whether or not a letter of support is needed; and at that on the basis of foreseeable actual “use” by the registrants? ICANN should (as discussed many times before) provide prospective applicants with the opportunity to have such test conducted many month ahead of the application period. This way in the probably extremely rare case that an applicant would feel treated unjust they could prepare extra information and get extra evidence to bolster their “case”. Or they simply get the letter of non-objection. What this “litmus test” does is essentially compare generic use with city use. A good generic term which has at least the CHANCE of fetching a high registration volume vs. a smallish city: No problem! But if somebody is targeting a city name that isn’t even identical to a generic term (Shanghai, Chicago): then we can bust those who try to avoid the requirement of a letter of support by the city government. Thanks, Alexander From: Dessalegn Yehuala [mailto:mequanint.yehuala@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 11:51 AM To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT 5 Suggestion: a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name Dear Alexander, Just one small comment on the text your proposed to be revised from the AGB 2012- "a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name" The WT5 is mandated to deal with issues that surround the treatment of geographic string identifiers at the top level, wouldn't 2nd level be out of scope? Kind regards, Dessalegn On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 5:49 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Hi WT 5, Over the weekend I will submit a longer comment about the issue of the terminology in “recommendation 11” = non-capital cities (pages 4 and 5 of 21 in the word document “DRAFT - WT5 Initial Report - Sections C-E - 27.9.2018 - with comments-1”) The text right now states (unchanged from the 2012 AGB) that applicants ONLY require a “letter of non-objection” from the relevant authorities (city government) if: a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name I will elaborate on both: “use” (by the applicant) and “primarily”. In my mind BOTH will have to be reversed: * “foreseeable use” by the “REGISTRANTS” (rather than then “intended or projected use by the applicant entity”) * and not limited to “primary use”– but something like “significant use”. “Primarily” could arguably be considered “90% or more”. “Significant” would probably start at 20% or the like. The geo panel would need a few guidelines here as well! I don’t care what or what not an applicant is dreaming of – that needs to be determined by the geo panel! If it is a closed brand application: obviously the case is clear. If it is a generic term like “rock” (music) and there is a small city of a few thousand people named “Rock”: it’s kind of clear that the significant majority of registrants will use the 2nd level domains in connotation with “Rock Music” (or other generic meanings of the term “rock” like moon.rock). But if somebody were to apply for an open gTLD .chicago, .shanghai or .frankfurt and would claim that there is “no primary use associated with the city intended” – sorry: then the applicant is either delusional or tries to circumvent the necessity to acquire a letter of non-objection from the relevant city Government. This litmus test should NOT be outsourced to the APPLICANT – but it should be a task executed by the geo-panel. You can’t make the goat the gardener. At least WE (ICANN) should not do so. A brand or a real generic term based application that is only “circumstantially” targeting a small city – that is one thing. Somebody applying for “.shanghai” trying to play tricks on the geo panel (and in fact on the entire ICANN community, and the city community of Shanghai): not cool. Doesn’t fly. In my email I will also specifically explain why this is deemed a risk in the next round when there weren’t any notable problems in the 2012 round. If anybody is interested in hearing my notion on that problematic: shout out to me – and I will elaborate further. In that light I suggest the following language (this is so to speak the litmus test whether an applicant needs a letter of non-objection). An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if: 2012 AGB: a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name Revision: a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name This way a brand applicant should generally have no problem at all (closed gTLD). And an applicant for a generic dictionary term with broad utilization in the DNS should also have no problems. But we would prevent that lazy (or cheating) applicants skip the line – and go for a city name WITHOUT looping in the city. That would be unfair to applicants that get the city’s support, unfair to the city itself and unfair to the city’s constituents. Comments? It would be nice if members that support this language would make themselves heard. I would wish to see my recommendation prominently positioned in the report – that will only happen if my notion finds support. Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 12:43 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 - 03 October 2018 Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (03 October). 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. Please also find attached the referenced document in PDF and Word including comments. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items: Actions: ACTION ITEM: Preliminary recommendation #2: Add a footnote explaining what "character" means Notes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates 2. Draft Initial Report Sections: Preliminary Recommendations, Options, and Questions -- Comments about missing points -- the deliberation sections are still to come. This is just three sections of six. -- These are just arguments/recommendations/options at this point. -- The question is are these the right alternatives to put out for public comment. -- Questions for community input -- asking if these make sense and if anything is missing. -- Any content is subject to public comment. Preliminary recommendation #1: -- Use of the word "certain" suggests there are other strings we have not addressed. Suggest deleting the word. -- Can we make it clear here that we are talking about the AGB as written rather than as applied? I don't think we want as applied. Preliminary recommendation #2: -- Question: We don't give any explanation for why we are making this recommendation. Answer: The explanation will be reflected in the deliberations in the Initial Report. Section C is just the text of the deliberations. There will be much more text in Section F on the deliberations, including pros and cons. -- Looking at the last bullet point re: WT2 considering letter-number combinations -- should this also refer to number-number combinations? ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote explaining what "character" means. Preliminary recommendation #3: -- Move this into the category of strings that could be applied for with documentation on support or non-objection. -- See also comments from Christopher Wilkinson. -- There were discussions about how many of these are generic words as well as three-letter country codes. There was a wider debate that was outside of scope since it was ccNSO territory. With that in mind that is how we got to this recommendation. There was quite a lot of debate on this. -- Do we need to clarify that we are not recommending that any 3-character codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard be removed from delegation? Or that .com should be removed from delegation? -- Could have country names that could be delegated -- if Canada wants .canada there should be a pathway for them to getting it. -- Not in favor of allowing the delegation of geographic names for non-geographic use. Preliminary recommendation #4: -- The problem is that we have not gotten agreement on prior authorization and geographical use. As long as we have no consensus we have to maintain this restriction. Recommendation #5: -- Question: We say we recommend continuing something in the AGB but then we say it's a revision. Are we saying the AGB is inconsistent with GNSO policy? Answer: Some members would like to see whether there is a discrepancy between the AGB and the policy -- so saying it is consistent with the AGB, but is not consistent with the policy. -- Suggest: "As noted above this recommendation is consistent with the AGB as written [not "as drafted"] and doesn't address the issue of translation of these strings. However, this is a revision to GNSO policy..." -- Agree with the change above but not the order. You had the policy first and then the AGB. -- Maybe need an explanation somewhere at the beginning of the document. Preliminary recommendation #6 -- The only thing that is listed are the code --- there are no names associated with a code as "exceptionally reserved". -- This is a category that was in the 2012 AGB. -- Example is "UK" -- The code is reserved on the ISO site, but not the name. -- Append a list for the actual report. -- When there is something reserved it doesn't mean that it is connected the specific area where we talk about it. As to whether there is a list -- there used to be a list available on request from the ISO secretariat. Preliminary recommendation #7: No objections Preliminary recommendation #8: Third bullet has same issue as mentioned above -- No "exceptionally reserved" in the ISO 3166. Preliminary recommendation #9: No objections Preliminary recommendation #10: No objections Preliminary recommendation #11: Comments from the list: -- Discussion of intended use is included in the deliberation section, including pros and cons. -- Comment premature to include this preliminary recommendation as it stands. -- Consider the use of the word "primarily" as in "use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name". Maybe it isn't quite the right word, but we would want to avoid unintended consequences. Also, not clear what we mean by "use". This language was in the 2012 AGB -- not saying it was perfect, but don't recall this ever becoming an issue with a city name. Before we suggest changes let's look at what happened in 2012. -- One could also say if the applicant considers any use for the city he will have to get a letter from the city. -- There has been a lot of back and forth on this issue -- we need to really take a look at whether we want to foreclose a bunch of words. -- Ignores free expression rights to use words with geographic meaning in lawful ways. -- Could address by putting in a contractual requirement that is more specific continuing to not use a TLD in a geographic sense. Preliminary recommendation #12: -- Need a separate recommendation dealing with the currency codes (ISO 4217). they are very important in the financial markets. -- Don't support adding protection of the currency code. -- The sub-national place names should be open for reservation for non-geographic uses without a letter of support or non-objection. 2. ICANN63: -- Released 3 subsections of the Initial Report. Only a few comments so far. -- Idea is to give people another week to submit comment, and then we will release the full package of the Initial Report. -- Idea is that in addition to doing status updates and outreach at ICANN63 we'll have time to potentially get broader community input on issues, as well as to note what might be missing. -- Three sessions on Saturday morning with lunch at the last session. _______________________________________________ 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 Thanks very much for your efforts! As you will recall, I’m of the view (shared by others) that «intended use» should be eliminated altogether from the rule applicable to city names – for the reasons that are on record. Essentially, whatever the use, the TLD is a unique resource, and its delegation, even if the use is determined to be non-geographic, means that the city identifier is delegated away… – this is IMO a sufficient reason to have the local authorities at the table before the applicant gets too far into the application process – so we avoid surprises and we also avoid the applicant investing important sums before it is clear that all interested parties at least do not object. Just as a reminder: Swiss cities (as cities in other countries following the civil code tradition) have rights under the law on their names – the intended use is not a key factor in that respect. Therefore, they need to be consulted beforehand if we want to avoid conflicts in such situations. Kind regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Alexander Schubert Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Oktober 2018 14:02 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT 5 Suggestion: a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name Dear Dessalegn, Thank you for the question! My notion was that we utilize the foreseeable (projectable) actual “use” by registrants to determine the association with the city name. But maybe it avoids confusion if we would shorten it to: An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if: 2012 AGB: a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name Revision: a) The geo name panel determines that it is foreseeable that registrants will use the TLD to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name The English here is slightly garbled (two time “that” – not very eloquent) but now it is as short as the original and 2nd level domains aren’t mentioned any more. And you are right: It’s mainly the gTLD portion of the domains registered by registrants that determine the “use”! Has anybody any suggestion for a better wording? Is there some support for the notion that we should NOT rely on “statements of the applicant” but rather have a neutral body (geo name panel) using “common sense” to determine whether or not a letter of support is needed; and at that on the basis of foreseeable actual “use” by the registrants? ICANN should (as discussed many times before) provide prospective applicants with the opportunity to have such test conducted many month ahead of the application period. This way in the probably extremely rare case that an applicant would feel treated unjust they could prepare extra information and get extra evidence to bolster their “case”. Or they simply get the letter of non-objection. What this “litmus test” does is essentially compare generic use with city use. A good generic term which has at least the CHANCE of fetching a high registration volume vs. a smallish city: No problem! But if somebody is targeting a city name that isn’t even identical to a generic term (Shanghai, Chicago): then we can bust those who try to avoid the requirement of a letter of support by the city government. Thanks, Alexander From: Dessalegn Yehuala [mailto:mequanint.yehuala@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 11:51 AM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT 5 Suggestion: a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name Dear Alexander, Just one small comment on the text your proposed to be revised from the AGB 2012- "a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name" The WT5 is mandated to deal with issues that surround the treatment of geographic string identifiers at the top level, wouldn't 2nd level be out of scope? Kind regards, Dessalegn On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 5:49 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Hi WT 5, Over the weekend I will submit a longer comment about the issue of the terminology in “recommendation 11” = non-capital cities (pages 4 and 5 of 21 in the word document “DRAFT - WT5 Initial Report - Sections C-E - 27.9.2018 - with comments-1”) The text right now states (unchanged from the 2012 AGB) that applicants ONLY require a “letter of non-objection” from the relevant authorities (city government) if: a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name I will elaborate on both: “use” (by the applicant) and “primarily”. In my mind BOTH will have to be reversed: • “foreseeable use” by the “REGISTRANTS” (rather than then “intended or projected use by the applicant entity”) • and not limited to “primary use”– but something like “significant use”. “Primarily” could arguably be considered “90% or more”. “Significant” would probably start at 20% or the like. The geo panel would need a few guidelines here as well! I don’t care what or what not an applicant is dreaming of – that needs to be determined by the geo panel! If it is a closed brand application: obviously the case is clear. If it is a generic term like “rock” (music) and there is a small city of a few thousand people named “Rock”: it’s kind of clear that the significant majority of registrants will use the 2nd level domains in connotation with “Rock Music” (or other generic meanings of the term “rock” like moon.rock). But if somebody were to apply for an open gTLD .chicago, .shanghai or .frankfurt and would claim that there is “no primary use associated with the city intended” – sorry: then the applicant is either delusional or tries to circumvent the necessity to acquire a letter of non-objection from the relevant city Government. This litmus test should NOT be outsourced to the APPLICANT – but it should be a task executed by the geo-panel. You can’t make the goat the gardener. At least WE (ICANN) should not do so. A brand or a real generic term based application that is only “circumstantially” targeting a small city – that is one thing. Somebody applying for “.shanghai” trying to play tricks on the geo panel (and in fact on the entire ICANN community, and the city community of Shanghai): not cool. Doesn’t fly. In my email I will also specifically explain why this is deemed a risk in the next round when there weren’t any notable problems in the 2012 round. If anybody is interested in hearing my notion on that problematic: shout out to me – and I will elaborate further. In that light I suggest the following language (this is so to speak the litmus test whether an applicant needs a letter of non-objection). An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if: 2012 AGB: a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name Revision: a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name This way a brand applicant should generally have no problem at all (closed gTLD). And an applicant for a generic dictionary term with broad utilization in the DNS should also have no problems. But we would prevent that lazy (or cheating) applicants skip the line – and go for a city name WITHOUT looping in the city. That would be unfair to applicants that get the city’s support, unfair to the city itself and unfair to the city’s constituents. Comments? It would be nice if members that support this language would make themselves heard. I would wish to see my recommendation prominently positioned in the report – that will only happen if my notion finds support. Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 12:43 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 - 03 October 2018 Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (03 October). 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. Please also find attached the referenced document in PDF and Word including comments. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items: Actions: ACTION ITEM: Preliminary recommendation #2: Add a footnote explaining what "character" means Notes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates 2. Draft Initial Report Sections: Preliminary Recommendations, Options, and Questions -- Comments about missing points -- the deliberation sections are still to come. This is just three sections of six. -- These are just arguments/recommendations/options at this point. -- The question is are these the right alternatives to put out for public comment. -- Questions for community input -- asking if these make sense and if anything is missing. -- Any content is subject to public comment. Preliminary recommendation #1: -- Use of the word "certain" suggests there are other strings we have not addressed. Suggest deleting the word. -- Can we make it clear here that we are talking about the AGB as written rather than as applied? I don't think we want as applied. Preliminary recommendation #2: -- Question: We don't give any explanation for why we are making this recommendation. Answer: The explanation will be reflected in the deliberations in the Initial Report. Section C is just the text of the deliberations. There will be much more text in Section F on the deliberations, including pros and cons. -- Looking at the last bullet point re: WT2 considering letter-number combinations -- should this also refer to number-number combinations? ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote explaining what "character" means. Preliminary recommendation #3: -- Move this into the category of strings that could be applied for with documentation on support or non-objection. -- See also comments from Christopher Wilkinson. -- There were discussions about how many of these are generic words as well as three-letter country codes. There was a wider debate that was outside of scope since it was ccNSO territory. With that in mind that is how we got to this recommendation. There was quite a lot of debate on this. -- Do we need to clarify that we are not recommending that any 3-character codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard be removed from delegation? Or that .com should be removed from delegation? -- Could have country names that could be delegated -- if Canada wants .canada there should be a pathway for them to getting it. -- Not in favor of allowing the delegation of geographic names for non-geographic use. Preliminary recommendation #4: -- The problem is that we have not gotten agreement on prior authorization and geographical use. As long as we have no consensus we have to maintain this restriction. Recommendation #5: -- Question: We say we recommend continuing something in the AGB but then we say it's a revision. Are we saying the AGB is inconsistent with GNSO policy? Answer: Some members would like to see whether there is a discrepancy between the AGB and the policy -- so saying it is consistent with the AGB, but is not consistent with the policy. -- Suggest: "As noted above this recommendation is consistent with the AGB as written [not "as drafted"] and doesn't address the issue of translation of these strings. However, this is a revision to GNSO policy..." -- Agree with the change above but not the order. You had the policy first and then the AGB. -- Maybe need an explanation somewhere at the beginning of the document. Preliminary recommendation #6 -- The only thing that is listed are the code --- there are no names associated with a code as "exceptionally reserved". -- This is a category that was in the 2012 AGB. -- Example is "UK" -- The code is reserved on the ISO site, but not the name. -- Append a list for the actual report. -- When there is something reserved it doesn't mean that it is connected the specific area where we talk about it. As to whether there is a list -- there used to be a list available on request from the ISO secretariat. Preliminary recommendation #7: No objections Preliminary recommendation #8: Third bullet has same issue as mentioned above -- No "exceptionally reserved" in the ISO 3166. Preliminary recommendation #9: No objections Preliminary recommendation #10: No objections Preliminary recommendation #11: Comments from the list: -- Discussion of intended use is included in the deliberation section, including pros and cons. -- Comment premature to include this preliminary recommendation as it stands. -- Consider the use of the word "primarily" as in "use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name". Maybe it isn't quite the right word, but we would want to avoid unintended consequences. Also, not clear what we mean by "use". This language was in the 2012 AGB -- not saying it was perfect, but don't recall this ever becoming an issue with a city name. Before we suggest changes let's look at what happened in 2012. -- One could also say if the applicant considers any use for the city he will have to get a letter from the city. -- There has been a lot of back and forth on this issue -- we need to really take a look at whether we want to foreclose a bunch of words. -- Ignores free expression rights to use words with geographic meaning in lawful ways. -- Could address by putting in a contractual requirement that is more specific continuing to not use a TLD in a geographic sense. Preliminary recommendation #12: -- Need a separate recommendation dealing with the currency codes (ISO 4217). they are very important in the financial markets. -- Don't support adding protection of the currency code. -- The sub-national place names should be open for reservation for non-geographic uses without a letter of support or non-objection. 2. ICANN63: -- Released 3 subsections of the Initial Report. Only a few comments so far. -- Idea is to give people another week to submit comment, and then we will release the full package of the Initial Report. -- Idea is that in addition to doing status updates and outreach at ICANN63 we'll have time to potentially get broader community input on issues, as well as to note what might be missing. -- Three sessions on Saturday morning with lunch at the last session. _______________________________________________ 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 Jorge, I am very much in agreement with your notion! However: the way the discussion turns out right now it seems there is a fair chance that we do not find agreement to ANY changes to the 2012 AGBs. And in absence of agreement to change something: the 2012 AGB specifications will remain in power! It’s the typical issue of “Realpolitik”: I am in agreement with you that ALL city names should be specially treated. At minimum if they exceed a certain size. But it seems that despite of a LOT of efforts to reach agreement – nothing happened. If we ask “less” – then agreement might be at least established. I see these typical threat scenarios: 1. An applicant targets a (usually HUGE – because only they are profitable) city, but wants to circumvent the requirement for the letter of support! As per the 2012 AGB this is more than easy: just say that you are NOT have the intent to use the gTLD primary for purposes associated with the city name; and you are done! Nothing ICANN could do about it. A clear flaw in the applicant guidebook that luckily wasn’t exploited in 2012 (for reasons that I will outline over the weekend). My new suggestion would solve this scenario! 2. An applicant goes for a real generic term (one that is broadly used in the DNS) – but inadvertently (circumstantially, accidentally) targets a smallish city. If the city is small – it is unlikely that it would ever go for its name as gTLD. So no real harm done. And if it is HUGE: the mechanism proposed by me would require the applicant to acquire the letter of non-objection. 3. The only real problem occurs if a BRAND applies for a closed gTLD – which allows them to maintain that the use will NOT be to a “significant degree for purposes associated with the city name”. If the city is smallish: Again, they anyway won’t go for a gTLD. So no harm done. If the city is HUGE: only in that case we had a real problem! In that case the city would have to entertain a formal objection via GAC. It is my hope that such case occurs rather seldom. So in most cases we would have established what we want: preventing the circumvention of the support requirement. Albeit: if we don’t agree to such measure – the original 2012 AGB provisions will stay in place – and nobody is protected in ANY way. Cities are sitting ducks – and Silcon Valley VC money will team up with Shareholder Value and raid cities globally. And honestly: who wants their city gTLD being guided by “U.S. Shareholder Values” instead of a local alliance of city constituents in teamwork with their city authority? In that respect: how do you plan to achieve your goal of protecting “all cities”? By eliminating the “non-geo use provision” altogether? Thanks, Alexander From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 3:30 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT 5 Suggestion: a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name Dear Alexander Thanks very much for your efforts! As you will recall, I’m of the view (shared by others) that «intended use» should be eliminated altogether from the rule applicable to city names – for the reasons that are on record. Essentially, whatever the use, the TLD is a unique resource, and its delegation, even if the use is determined to be non-geographic, means that the city identifier is delegated away… – this is IMO a sufficient reason to have the local authorities at the table before the applicant gets too far into the application process – so we avoid surprises and we also avoid the applicant investing important sums before it is clear that all interested parties at least do not object. Just as a reminder: Swiss cities (as cities in other countries following the civil code tradition) have rights under the law on their names – the intended use is not a key factor in that respect. Therefore, they need to be consulted beforehand if we want to avoid conflicts in such situations. Kind regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > Im Auftrag von Alexander Schubert Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Oktober 2018 14:02 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT 5 Suggestion: a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name Dear Dessalegn, Thank you for the question! My notion was that we utilize the foreseeable (projectable) actual “use” by registrants to determine the association with the city name. But maybe it avoids confusion if we would shorten it to: An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if: 2012 AGB: a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name Revision: a) The geo name panel determines that it is foreseeable that registrants will use the TLD to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name The English here is slightly garbled (two time “that” – not very eloquent) but now it is as short as the original and 2nd level domains aren’t mentioned any more. And you are right: It’s mainly the gTLD portion of the domains registered by registrants that determine the “use”! Has anybody any suggestion for a better wording? Is there some support for the notion that we should NOT rely on “statements of the applicant” but rather have a neutral body (geo name panel) using “common sense” to determine whether or not a letter of support is needed; and at that on the basis of foreseeable actual “use” by the registrants? ICANN should (as discussed many times before) provide prospective applicants with the opportunity to have such test conducted many month ahead of the application period. This way in the probably extremely rare case that an applicant would feel treated unjust they could prepare extra information and get extra evidence to bolster their “case”. Or they simply get the letter of non-objection. What this “litmus test” does is essentially compare generic use with city use. A good generic term which has at least the CHANCE of fetching a high registration volume vs. a smallish city: No problem! But if somebody is targeting a city name that isn’t even identical to a generic term (Shanghai, Chicago): then we can bust those who try to avoid the requirement of a letter of support by the city government. Thanks, Alexander From: Dessalegn Yehuala [mailto:mequanint.yehuala@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 11:51 AM To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT 5 Suggestion: a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name Dear Alexander, Just one small comment on the text your proposed to be revised from the AGB 2012- "a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name" The WT5 is mandated to deal with issues that surround the treatment of geographic string identifiers at the top level, wouldn't 2nd level be out of scope? Kind regards, Dessalegn On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 5:49 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Hi WT 5, Over the weekend I will submit a longer comment about the issue of the terminology in “recommendation 11” = non-capital cities (pages 4 and 5 of 21 in the word document “DRAFT - WT5 Initial Report - Sections C-E - 27.9.2018 - with comments-1”) The text right now states (unchanged from the 2012 AGB) that applicants ONLY require a “letter of non-objection” from the relevant authorities (city government) if: a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name I will elaborate on both: “use” (by the applicant) and “primarily”. In my mind BOTH will have to be reversed: * “foreseeable use” by the “REGISTRANTS” (rather than then “intended or projected use by the applicant entity”) * and not limited to “primary use”– but something like “significant use”. “Primarily” could arguably be considered “90% or more”. “Significant” would probably start at 20% or the like. The geo panel would need a few guidelines here as well! I don’t care what or what not an applicant is dreaming of – that needs to be determined by the geo panel! If it is a closed brand application: obviously the case is clear. If it is a generic term like “rock” (music) and there is a small city of a few thousand people named “Rock”: it’s kind of clear that the significant majority of registrants will use the 2nd level domains in connotation with “Rock Music” (or other generic meanings of the term “rock” like moon.rock). But if somebody were to apply for an open gTLD .chicago, .shanghai or .frankfurt and would claim that there is “no primary use associated with the city intended” – sorry: then the applicant is either delusional or tries to circumvent the necessity to acquire a letter of non-objection from the relevant city Government. This litmus test should NOT be outsourced to the APPLICANT – but it should be a task executed by the geo-panel. You can’t make the goat the gardener. At least WE (ICANN) should not do so. A brand or a real generic term based application that is only “circumstantially” targeting a small city – that is one thing. Somebody applying for “.shanghai” trying to play tricks on the geo panel (and in fact on the entire ICANN community, and the city community of Shanghai): not cool. Doesn’t fly. In my email I will also specifically explain why this is deemed a risk in the next round when there weren’t any notable problems in the 2012 round. If anybody is interested in hearing my notion on that problematic: shout out to me – and I will elaborate further. In that light I suggest the following language (this is so to speak the litmus test whether an applicant needs a letter of non-objection). An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if: 2012 AGB: a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name Revision: a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name This way a brand applicant should generally have no problem at all (closed gTLD). And an applicant for a generic dictionary term with broad utilization in the DNS should also have no problems. But we would prevent that lazy (or cheating) applicants skip the line – and go for a city name WITHOUT looping in the city. That would be unfair to applicants that get the city’s support, unfair to the city itself and unfair to the city’s constituents. Comments? It would be nice if members that support this language would make themselves heard. I would wish to see my recommendation prominently positioned in the report – that will only happen if my notion finds support. Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 12:43 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 - 03 October 2018 Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (03 October). 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. Please also find attached the referenced document in PDF and Word including comments. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items: Actions: ACTION ITEM: Preliminary recommendation #2: Add a footnote explaining what "character" means Notes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates 2. Draft Initial Report Sections: Preliminary Recommendations, Options, and Questions -- Comments about missing points -- the deliberation sections are still to come. This is just three sections of six. -- These are just arguments/recommendations/options at this point. -- The question is are these the right alternatives to put out for public comment. -- Questions for community input -- asking if these make sense and if anything is missing. -- Any content is subject to public comment. Preliminary recommendation #1: -- Use of the word "certain" suggests there are other strings we have not addressed. Suggest deleting the word. -- Can we make it clear here that we are talking about the AGB as written rather than as applied? I don't think we want as applied. Preliminary recommendation #2: -- Question: We don't give any explanation for why we are making this recommendation. Answer: The explanation will be reflected in the deliberations in the Initial Report. Section C is just the text of the deliberations. There will be much more text in Section F on the deliberations, including pros and cons. -- Looking at the last bullet point re: WT2 considering letter-number combinations -- should this also refer to number-number combinations? ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote explaining what "character" means. Preliminary recommendation #3: -- Move this into the category of strings that could be applied for with documentation on support or non-objection. -- See also comments from Christopher Wilkinson. -- There were discussions about how many of these are generic words as well as three-letter country codes. There was a wider debate that was outside of scope since it was ccNSO territory. With that in mind that is how we got to this recommendation. There was quite a lot of debate on this. -- Do we need to clarify that we are not recommending that any 3-character codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard be removed from delegation? Or that .com should be removed from delegation? -- Could have country names that could be delegated -- if Canada wants .canada there should be a pathway for them to getting it. -- Not in favor of allowing the delegation of geographic names for non-geographic use. Preliminary recommendation #4: -- The problem is that we have not gotten agreement on prior authorization and geographical use. As long as we have no consensus we have to maintain this restriction. Recommendation #5: -- Question: We say we recommend continuing something in the AGB but then we say it's a revision. Are we saying the AGB is inconsistent with GNSO policy? Answer: Some members would like to see whether there is a discrepancy between the AGB and the policy -- so saying it is consistent with the AGB, but is not consistent with the policy. -- Suggest: "As noted above this recommendation is consistent with the AGB as written [not "as drafted"] and doesn't address the issue of translation of these strings. However, this is a revision to GNSO policy..." -- Agree with the change above but not the order. You had the policy first and then the AGB. -- Maybe need an explanation somewhere at the beginning of the document. Preliminary recommendation #6 -- The only thing that is listed are the code --- there are no names associated with a code as "exceptionally reserved". -- This is a category that was in the 2012 AGB. -- Example is "UK" -- The code is reserved on the ISO site, but not the name. -- Append a list for the actual report. -- When there is something reserved it doesn't mean that it is connected the specific area where we talk about it. As to whether there is a list -- there used to be a list available on request from the ISO secretariat. Preliminary recommendation #7: No objections Preliminary recommendation #8: Third bullet has same issue as mentioned above -- No "exceptionally reserved" in the ISO 3166. Preliminary recommendation #9: No objections Preliminary recommendation #10: No objections Preliminary recommendation #11: Comments from the list: -- Discussion of intended use is included in the deliberation section, including pros and cons. -- Comment premature to include this preliminary recommendation as it stands. -- Consider the use of the word "primarily" as in "use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name". Maybe it isn't quite the right word, but we would want to avoid unintended consequences. Also, not clear what we mean by "use". This language was in the 2012 AGB -- not saying it was perfect, but don't recall this ever becoming an issue with a city name. Before we suggest changes let's look at what happened in 2012. -- One could also say if the applicant considers any use for the city he will have to get a letter from the city. -- There has been a lot of back and forth on this issue -- we need to really take a look at whether we want to foreclose a bunch of words. -- Ignores free expression rights to use words with geographic meaning in lawful ways. -- Could address by putting in a contractual requirement that is more specific continuing to not use a TLD in a geographic sense. Preliminary recommendation #12: -- Need a separate recommendation dealing with the currency codes (ISO 4217). they are very important in the financial markets. -- Don't support adding protection of the currency code. -- The sub-national place names should be open for reservation for non-geographic uses without a letter of support or non-objection. 2. ICANN63: -- Released 3 subsections of the Initial Report. Only a few comments so far. -- Idea is to give people another week to submit comment, and then we will release the full package of the Initial Report. -- Idea is that in addition to doing status updates and outreach at ICANN63 we'll have time to potentially get broader community input on issues, as well as to note what might be missing. -- Three sessions on Saturday morning with lunch at the last session. _______________________________________________ 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
I truly admire Alexander's attempt to extract some minimal protection for city names from this round of discussions and I fully support it. This suggested wording adjustment is a long way from the hope that the names of 1M+ cities be set aside and hopefully, that discussion is not completely over. But I think it is time for all parties to this discussion to find a way to modify their positions and support such a proposal. Marita On 10/5/2018 3:00 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear Jorge,
I am very much in agreement with your notion! However: the way the discussion turns out right now it seems there is a fair chance that we do not find agreement to ANY changes to the 2012 AGBs. And in absence of agreement to change something: the 2012 AGB specifications will remain in power!
It’s the typical issue of “Realpolitik”:
I am in agreement with you that ALL city names should be specially treated. At minimum if they exceed a certain size. But it seems that despite of a LOT of efforts to reach agreement – nothing happened. If we ask “less” – then agreement might be at least established.
I see these typical threat scenarios:
1.An applicant targets a (usually HUGE – because only they are profitable) city, but wants to circumvent the requirement for the letter of support! As per the 2012 AGB this is more than easy: just say that you are NOT have the intent to use the gTLD primary for purposes associated with the city name; and you are done! Nothing ICANN could do about it. A clear flaw in the applicant guidebook that luckily wasn’t exploited in 2012 (for reasons that I will outline over the weekend). My new suggestion would solve this scenario!
2.An applicant goes for a real generic term (one that is broadly used in the DNS) – but inadvertently (circumstantially, accidentally) targets a smallish city. If the city is small – it is unlikely that it would ever go for its name as gTLD. So no real harm done. And if it is HUGE: the mechanism proposed by me would require the applicant to acquire the letter of non-objection.
3.The only real problem occurs if a BRAND applies for a closed gTLD – which allows them to maintain that the use will NOT be to a “significant degree for purposes associated with the city name”. If the city is smallish: Again, they anyway won’t go for a gTLD. So no harm done. If the city is HUGE: only in that case we had a real problem! In that case the city would have to entertain a formal objection via GAC. It is my hope that such case occurs rather seldom.
So in most cases we would have established what we want: preventing the circumvention of the support requirement. Albeit: if we don’t agree to such measure – the original 2012 AGB provisions will stay in place – and nobody is protected in ANY way. Cities are sitting ducks – and Silcon Valley VC money will team up with Shareholder Value and raid cities globally. And honestly: who wants their city gTLD being guided by “U.S. Shareholder Values” instead of a local alliance of city constituents in teamwork with their city authority?
In that respect: how do you plan to achieve your goal of protecting “all cities”? By eliminating the “non-geo use provision” altogether?
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:*Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] *Sent:* Friday, October 05, 2018 3:30 PM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT 5 Suggestion: a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name
Dear Alexander
Thanks very much for your efforts!
As you will recall, I’m of the view (shared by others) that «intended use» should be eliminated altogether from the rule applicable to city names – for the reasons that are on record.
Essentially, whatever the use, the TLD is a unique resource, and its delegation, even if the use is determined to be non-geographic, means that the city identifier is delegated away… – this is IMO a sufficient reason to have the local authorities at the table before the applicant gets too far into the application process – so we avoid surprises and we also avoid the applicant investing important sums before it is clear that all interested parties at least do not object.
Just as a reminder: Swiss cities (as cities in other countries following the civil code tradition) have rights under the law on their names – the intended use is not a key factor in that respect. Therefore, they need to be consulted beforehand if we want to avoid conflicts in such situations.
Kind regards
Jorge
*Von:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> *Im Auftrag von *Alexander Schubert *Gesendet:* Freitag, 5. Oktober 2018 14:02 *An:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT 5 Suggestion: a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name
Dear Dessalegn,
Thank you for the question!
My notion was that we utilize the foreseeable (projectable) actual “use” by registrants to determine the association with the city name. But maybe it avoids confusion if we would shorten it to:
*/An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if:/*
2012 AGB: */a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name/*
Revision: */a) The geo name panel determines that it is foreseeable that registrants will use the TLD to a significant degreefor purposes associated with the city name/*
The English here is slightly garbled (two time “that” – not very eloquent) but now it is as short as the original and 2^nd level domains aren’t mentioned any more. And you are right: It’s mainly the gTLD portion of the domains registered by registrants that determine the “use”!
Has anybody any suggestion for a better wording? Is there some support for the notion that we should NOT rely on “statements of the applicant” but rather have a neutral body (geo name panel) using “common sense” to determine whether or not a letter of support is needed; and at that on the basis of foreseeable actual “use” by the registrants? ICANN should (as discussed many times before) provide prospective applicants with the opportunity to have such test conducted many month ahead of the application period. This way in the probably extremely rare case that an applicant would feel treated unjust they could prepare extra information and get extra evidence to bolster their “case”. Or they simply get the letter of non-objection.
What this “litmus test” does is essentially compare generic use with city use. A good generic term which has at least the CHANCE of fetching a high registration volume vs. a smallish city: No problem! But if somebody is targeting a city name that isn’t even identical to a generic term (Shanghai, Chicago): then we can bust those who try to avoid the requirement of a letter of support by the city government.
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:*Dessalegn Yehuala [mailto:mequanint.yehuala@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, October 05, 2018 11:51 AM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT 5 Suggestion: a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name
Dear Alexander,
Just one small comment on the text your proposed to be revised from the AGB 2012- "*/a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2^nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name"/*
The WT5 is mandated to deal with issues that surround the treatment of geographic string identifiers at the top level, wouldn't 2nd level be out of scope?
Kind regards,
Dessalegn
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 5:49 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Hi WT 5,
Over the weekend I will submit a longer comment about the issue of the terminology in “recommendation 11” = non-capital cities (pages 4 and 5 of 21 in the word document “/DRAFT - WT5 Initial Report - Sections C-E - 27.9.2018 - with comments-1/”)
The text right now states (unchanged from the 2012 AGB) that applicants ONLY require a “letter of non-objection” from the relevant authorities (city government) if:
*/a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name/*
I will elaborate on both: “*/use/*” (by the applicant) and “*/primarily/*”. In my mind BOTH will have to be reversed:
·“foreseeable use” by the “REGISTRANTS” (rather than then “intended or projected use by the applicant entity”)
·and not limited to “primary use”– but something like “significant use”. “Primarily” could arguably be considered “90% or more”. “Significant” would probably start at 20% or the like. The geo panel would need a few guidelines here as well!
I don’t care what or what not an applicant is dreaming of – that needs to be determined by the geo panel! If it is a closed brand application: obviously the case is clear. If it is a generic term like “rock” (music) and there is a small city of a few thousand people named “Rock”: it’s kind of clear that the significant majority of registrants will use the 2^nd level domains in connotation with “Rock Music” (or other generic meanings of the term “rock” like moon.rock). But if somebody were to apply for an open gTLD .chicago, .shanghai or .frankfurt and would claim that there is “no primary use associated with the city intended” – sorry: then the applicant is either delusional or tries to circumvent the necessity to acquire a letter of non-objection from the relevant city Government. This litmus test should NOT be outsourced to the APPLICANT – but it should be a task executed by the geo-panel. You can’t make the goat the gardener. At least WE (ICANN) should not do so. A brand or a real generic term based application that is only “circumstantially” targeting a small city – that is one thing. Somebody applying for “.shanghai” trying to play tricks on the geo panel (and in fact on the entire ICANN community, and the city community of Shanghai): not cool. Doesn’t fly.
In my email I will also specifically explain why this is deemed a risk in the next round when there weren’t any notable problems in the 2012 round. If anybody is interested in hearing my notion on that problematic: shout out to me – and I will elaborate further.
In that light I suggest the following language (this is so to speak the litmus test whether an applicant needs a letter of non-objection).
*/An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if:/*
2012 AGB: */a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name/*
Revision: */a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2^nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degreefor purposes associated with the city name/*
This way a brand applicant should generally have no problem at all (closed gTLD). And an applicant for a generic dictionary term with broad utilization in the DNS should also have no problems. But we would prevent that lazy (or cheating) applicants skip the line – and go for a city name WITHOUT looping in the city. That would be unfair to applicants that get the city’s support, unfair to the city itself and unfair to the city’s constituents.
Comments? It would be nice if members that support this language would make themselves heard. I would wish to see my recommendation prominently positioned in the report – that will only happen if my notion finds support.
Alexander.berlin
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund *Sent:* Thursday, October 04, 2018 12:43 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 - 03 October 2018
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (03 October). /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./
Please also find attached the referenced document in PDF and Word including comments.
Kind regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Notes/Action Items:*
*Actions:*
ACTION ITEM: Preliminary recommendation #2: Add a footnote explaining what "character" means
*Notes:*
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates
2. Draft Initial Report Sections: Preliminary Recommendations, Options, and Questions
-- Comments about missing points -- the deliberation sections are still to come. This is just three sections of six.
-- These are just arguments/recommendations/options at this point.
-- The question is are these the right alternatives to put out for public comment.
-- Questions for community input -- asking if these make sense and if anything is missing.
-- Any content is subject to public comment.
Preliminary recommendation #1:
-- Use of the word "certain" suggests there are other strings we have not addressed. Suggest deleting the word.
-- Can we make it clear here that we are talking about the AGB as written rather than as applied? I don't think we want as applied.
Preliminary recommendation #2:
-- Question: We don't give any explanation for why we are making this recommendation. Answer: The explanation will be reflected in the deliberations in the Initial Report. Section C is just the text of the deliberations. There will be much more text in Section F on the deliberations, including pros and cons.
-- Looking at the last bullet point re: WT2 considering letter-number combinations -- should this also refer to number-number combinations?
ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote explaining what "character" means.
Preliminary recommendation #3:
-- Move this into the category of strings that could be applied for with documentation on support or non-objection.
-- See also comments from Christopher Wilkinson.
-- There were discussions about how many of these are generic words as well as three-letter country codes. There was a wider debate that was outside of scope since it was ccNSO territory. With that in mind that is how we got to this recommendation. There was quite a lot of debate on this.
-- Do we need to clarify that we are not recommending that any 3-character codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard be removed from delegation? Or that .com should be removed from delegation?
-- Could have country names that could be delegated -- if Canada wants .canada there should be a pathway for them to getting it.
-- Not in favor of allowing the delegation of geographic names for non-geographic use.
Preliminary recommendation #4:
-- The problem is that we have not gotten agreement on prior authorization and geographical use. As long as we have no consensus we have to maintain this restriction.
Recommendation #5:
-- Question: We say we recommend continuing something in the AGB but then we say it's a revision. Are we saying the AGB is inconsistent with GNSO policy? Answer: Some members would like to see whether there is a discrepancy between the AGB and the policy -- so saying it is consistent with the AGB, but is not consistent with the policy.
-- Suggest: "As noted above this recommendation is consistent with the AGB as written [not "as drafted"] and doesn't address the issue of translation of these strings. However, this is a revision to GNSO policy..."
-- Agree with the change above but not the order. You had the policy first and then the AGB.
-- Maybe need an explanation somewhere at the beginning of the document.
Preliminary recommendation #6
-- The only thing that is listed are the code --- there are no names associated with a code as "exceptionally reserved".
-- This is a category that was in the 2012 AGB.
-- Example is "UK" -- The code is reserved on the ISO site, but not the name.
-- Append a list for the actual report.
-- When there is something reserved it doesn't mean that it is connected the specific area where we talk about it. As to whether there is a list -- there used to be a list available on request from the ISO secretariat.
Preliminary recommendation #7: No objections
Preliminary recommendation #8: Third bullet has same issue as mentioned above -- No "exceptionally reserved" in the ISO 3166.
Preliminary recommendation #9: No objections
Preliminary recommendation #10: No objections
Preliminary recommendation #11:
Comments from the list:
-- Discussion of intended use is included in the deliberation section, including pros and cons.
-- Comment premature to include this preliminary recommendation as it stands.
-- Consider the use of the word "primarily" as in "use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name". Maybe it isn't quite the right word, but we would want to avoid unintended consequences. Also, not clear what we mean by "use". This language was in the 2012 AGB -- not saying it was perfect, but don't recall this ever becoming an issue with a city name. Before we suggest changes let's look at what happened in 2012.
-- One could also say if the applicant considers any use for the city he will have to get a letter from the city.
-- There has been a lot of back and forth on this issue -- we need to really take a look at whether we want to foreclose a bunch of words.
-- Ignores free expression rights to use words with geographic meaning in lawful ways.
-- Could address by putting in a contractual requirement that is more specific continuing to not use a TLD in a geographic sense.
Preliminary recommendation #12:
-- Need a separate recommendation dealing with the currency codes (ISO 4217). they are very important in the financial markets.
-- Don't support adding protection of the currency code.
-- The sub-national place names should be open for reservation for non-geographic uses without a letter of support or non-objection.
2. ICANN63:
-- Released 3 subsections of the Initial Report. Only a few comments so far.
-- Idea is to give people another week to submit comment, and then we will release the full package of the Initial Report.
-- Idea is that in addition to doing status updates and outreach at ICANN63 we'll have time to potentially get broader community input on issues, as well as to note what might be missing.
-- Three sessions on Saturday morning with lunch at the last session.
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi Marita, Thanks. Well, we have one fraction that wants to protect a very WIDE array of geo names. And another fraction that wishes all “regulation” to hell (for reasons that I assume are mostly “commercial”). These both fractions are clashing in this WT5. As a result we will not have any “agreement” on proposed changes – so the old 2012 AGB provisions stay in place. I project that there will be entities in the next round(s) that are prepared to go to any length to avoid talking to the relevant city Governments in order to reach agreements with the city prerequisite for getting a letter of support. It is foreseeable that most if not all cities will want to conduct public tenders in case somebody requests a support letter! Why wake “sleeping dogs”? To participate in a public tender as an entity that is native to the city and has support from city constituencies is already very stressful – but if you are a portfolio applicant and raid DNS city-land in other continents: you already get problems with the language barrier; not to speak the different mentality, etc.! Public tenders are the enemy of the shareholder driven VC applicants – because a public tender fosters positive competition and brings to the light of the day operation models that benefit the city and its constituents – and NOT “shareholders”. Which is why we want these letter of non-objection in the first place, right? In the last call the question arose: “have there been any problems with city names in that regards? Has anybody tried to circumvent the support letter requirement”? The answer is: NO! There weren’t problems. But I project there WILL be, and let me lay out why I think so: 1. In the 2012 round applicants were concerned to prove that their business model would sufficiently showcase that the proposed registry would operate sustainably. Meaning that it would generate enough revenues to cover the cost. That was a requirement back then. If you applied for “.miami” – and would NOT primarily target the constituents of the City of Miami: how to prove that you can operate the registry in a sustainable way? 2. In the 2012 round the ENTIRE “generic namespace” was up for grabs. Applicants could go for all the valuable “low hanging” fruits like “.shop”, “.app”, “.web” – strings that would be very promising from a commercial perspective. Most of these premium generic keyword based strings have been applied for in 2012. 3. In the years prior to 2012 - when people started to choose their desired string(s) – city name based gTLDs were met with doubt! I have been lobbying for city based gTLDs since 2005 – and initially people completely rejected the notion that such string could be a basis for a profitable registry operation. By late 2011 (when all applicants had chosen their strings) there was still a lot of doubt whether such registry would ever be a commercial success. So from the eyes of a VC funded and shareholder value driven portfolio applicant: why venturing into this uncertain corner of all the unclaimed gTLD land? City gTLDs where mostly interesting for applicants who were driven by ideology, patriotism and love for their city. Like somebody who is born in that city (hint: I am Berliner, literally). All of this has drastically changed by end of 2018. And will even more change by 2020/2021: 1. Take as an example “.xyz” – a string that has little to no “generic meaning” at all and basically lives off that fact by acting as sort of “placeholder”. Two million registrations. Now ANYBODY who would apply for ANY string could simply point out in their business plan that they strive to copy the “.xyz” model. Hence they would NOT have to “primarily target” the city constituents as prospective registrants. 2. The generic namespace is heavily raided – it will be very hard to find commercially interesting generic keyword based strings for the 2020 round. A few new industries emerged (or became legal in the U.S.) like “.weed” or “.wallet”, “.coin”. But identifying commercially successful generic keyword based strings is a real problem. I know, I do that for a living. But the city name based gTLD land is wide open right now. In the U.S. for example only “.miami”, “.vegas”, “.nyc” and “.boston” have been applied for. There is a MYRIAD of commercially interesting cities in the U.S. and Europe alone. 3. City name based gTLDs proved to be a commercial success. And for all the reasons that Dirk and me preached already in late 2004 (it’s been almost 14 years that we started that project). Gone is the “doubt”. Investing in a city gTLD would be considered a solid business decision by VC funders by today. So yes: nobody tried to pull off any tricks to circumvent the letter of support requirement. But the way we have formulated this requirement is in my eyes not anymore suitable to protect cities in 2020, because the landscape has changed. 2011 to 2020 – that’s 9 long years! Applicants require a “letter of non-objection” from the relevant authorities (city government) if: a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name I take offense on 3 parts: 1. That the APPLICANT can influence the outcome by simply making this or that declaration – instead of a NEUTRAL body evaluating the likelihood that the gTLD will be used for “purposes associated with the city name”. 2. That we solely take into account what the APPLICANT will (“intends to”) “USE” the gTLD for – instead of having evaluated by a neutral body what the INTERNET USER likely will use it for (don’t make a “glass ball joke”). 3. That the city connected use has to be PRIMARY! Why primary? What is primary? 90%? 95%? Why not “significantly”? If more then maybe 20% (we would have to agree on a measure) of REGISTRANTS start to use the gTLD for “purposes associated with the city name” – well: then they city needs to be looped in! Hence my proposal: An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if: 2012 AGB: a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name Revision: a) The geo name panel determines that it is foreseeable that registrants will use the TLD to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name This way generic term based applications are safe if the application were to only “incidentally” (circumstantially) target a (smaller) city. (Closed) applications by brands won’t be a problem – if the city is small enough that it won’t apply for a gTLD by itself anyways. Big cities would be protected either way! The one and only problem that remains unsolved: If a brand targets a sizeable city. This one problem (and I personally do not assume it is very big) would have to be addressed in another way. But the way we address the problem now: “applicant statements”, “intended use by applicant”, “primarily” – sorry. It luckily worked out in the 2012 round. It screams “abuse me”. Actually: one doesn’t even have to “abuse” this policy item: Just don’t state that the application targets the city “primarily”: and you are fine. Not cool. Thanks, Alexander From: Marita Moll [mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net] Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 1:51 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT 5 Suggestion: a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name I truly admire Alexander's attempt to extract some minimal protection for city names from this round of discussions and I fully support it. This suggested wording adjustment is a long way from the hope that the names of 1M+ cities be set aside and hopefully, that discussion is not completely over. But I think it is time for all parties to this discussion to find a way to modify their positions and support such a proposal. Marita On 10/5/2018 3:00 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Jorge, I am very much in agreement with your notion! However: the way the discussion turns out right now it seems there is a fair chance that we do not find agreement to ANY changes to the 2012 AGBs. And in absence of agreement to change something: the 2012 AGB specifications will remain in power! It’s the typical issue of “Realpolitik”: I am in agreement with you that ALL city names should be specially treated. At minimum if they exceed a certain size. But it seems that despite of a LOT of efforts to reach agreement – nothing happened. If we ask “less” – then agreement might be at least established. I see these typical threat scenarios: 1. An applicant targets a (usually HUGE – because only they are profitable) city, but wants to circumvent the requirement for the letter of support! As per the 2012 AGB this is more than easy: just say that you are NOT have the intent to use the gTLD primary for purposes associated with the city name; and you are done! Nothing ICANN could do about it. A clear flaw in the applicant guidebook that luckily wasn’t exploited in 2012 (for reasons that I will outline over the weekend). My new suggestion would solve this scenario! 2. An applicant goes for a real generic term (one that is broadly used in the DNS) – but inadvertently (circumstantially, accidentally) targets a smallish city. If the city is small – it is unlikely that it would ever go for its name as gTLD. So no real harm done. And if it is HUGE: the mechanism proposed by me would require the applicant to acquire the letter of non-objection. 3. The only real problem occurs if a BRAND applies for a closed gTLD – which allows them to maintain that the use will NOT be to a “significant degree for purposes associated with the city name”. If the city is smallish: Again, they anyway won’t go for a gTLD. So no harm done. If the city is HUGE: only in that case we had a real problem! In that case the city would have to entertain a formal objection via GAC. It is my hope that such case occurs rather seldom. So in most cases we would have established what we want: preventing the circumvention of the support requirement. Albeit: if we don’t agree to such measure – the original 2012 AGB provisions will stay in place – and nobody is protected in ANY way. Cities are sitting ducks – and Silcon Valley VC money will team up with Shareholder Value and raid cities globally. And honestly: who wants their city gTLD being guided by “U.S. Shareholder Values” instead of a local alliance of city constituents in teamwork with their city authority? In that respect: how do you plan to achieve your goal of protecting “all cities”? By eliminating the “non-geo use provision” altogether? Thanks, Alexander From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 3:30 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> ; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT 5 Suggestion: a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name Dear Alexander Thanks very much for your efforts! As you will recall, I’m of the view (shared by others) that «intended use» should be eliminated altogether from the rule applicable to city names – for the reasons that are on record. Essentially, whatever the use, the TLD is a unique resource, and its delegation, even if the use is determined to be non-geographic, means that the city identifier is delegated away… – this is IMO a sufficient reason to have the local authorities at the table before the applicant gets too far into the application process – so we avoid surprises and we also avoid the applicant investing important sums before it is clear that all interested parties at least do not object. Just as a reminder: Swiss cities (as cities in other countries following the civil code tradition) have rights under the law on their names – the intended use is not a key factor in that respect. Therefore, they need to be consulted beforehand if we want to avoid conflicts in such situations. Kind regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > Im Auftrag von Alexander Schubert Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Oktober 2018 14:02 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT 5 Suggestion: a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name Dear Dessalegn, Thank you for the question! My notion was that we utilize the foreseeable (projectable) actual “use” by registrants to determine the association with the city name. But maybe it avoids confusion if we would shorten it to: An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if: 2012 AGB: a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name Revision: a) The geo name panel determines that it is foreseeable that registrants will use the TLD to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name The English here is slightly garbled (two time “that” – not very eloquent) but now it is as short as the original and 2nd level domains aren’t mentioned any more. And you are right: It’s mainly the gTLD portion of the domains registered by registrants that determine the “use”! Has anybody any suggestion for a better wording? Is there some support for the notion that we should NOT rely on “statements of the applicant” but rather have a neutral body (geo name panel) using “common sense” to determine whether or not a letter of support is needed; and at that on the basis of foreseeable actual “use” by the registrants? ICANN should (as discussed many times before) provide prospective applicants with the opportunity to have such test conducted many month ahead of the application period. This way in the probably extremely rare case that an applicant would feel treated unjust they could prepare extra information and get extra evidence to bolster their “case”. Or they simply get the letter of non-objection. What this “litmus test” does is essentially compare generic use with city use. A good generic term which has at least the CHANCE of fetching a high registration volume vs. a smallish city: No problem! But if somebody is targeting a city name that isn’t even identical to a generic term (Shanghai, Chicago): then we can bust those who try to avoid the requirement of a letter of support by the city government. Thanks, Alexander From: Dessalegn Yehuala [mailto:mequanint.yehuala@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 11:51 AM To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT 5 Suggestion: a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name Dear Alexander, Just one small comment on the text your proposed to be revised from the AGB 2012- "a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name" The WT5 is mandated to deal with issues that surround the treatment of geographic string identifiers at the top level, wouldn't 2nd level be out of scope? Kind regards, Dessalegn On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 5:49 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Hi WT 5, Over the weekend I will submit a longer comment about the issue of the terminology in “recommendation 11” = non-capital cities (pages 4 and 5 of 21 in the word document “DRAFT - WT5 Initial Report - Sections C-E - 27.9.2018 - with comments-1”) The text right now states (unchanged from the 2012 AGB) that applicants ONLY require a “letter of non-objection” from the relevant authorities (city government) if: a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name I will elaborate on both: “use” (by the applicant) and “primarily”. In my mind BOTH will have to be reversed: * “foreseeable use” by the “REGISTRANTS” (rather than then “intended or projected use by the applicant entity”) * and not limited to “primary use”– but something like “significant use”. “Primarily” could arguably be considered “90% or more”. “Significant” would probably start at 20% or the like. The geo panel would need a few guidelines here as well! I don’t care what or what not an applicant is dreaming of – that needs to be determined by the geo panel! If it is a closed brand application: obviously the case is clear. If it is a generic term like “rock” (music) and there is a small city of a few thousand people named “Rock”: it’s kind of clear that the significant majority of registrants will use the 2nd level domains in connotation with “Rock Music” (or other generic meanings of the term “rock” like moon.rock). But if somebody were to apply for an open gTLD .chicago, .shanghai or .frankfurt and would claim that there is “no primary use associated with the city intended” – sorry: then the applicant is either delusional or tries to circumvent the necessity to acquire a letter of non-objection from the relevant city Government. This litmus test should NOT be outsourced to the APPLICANT – but it should be a task executed by the geo-panel. You can’t make the goat the gardener. At least WE (ICANN) should not do so. A brand or a real generic term based application that is only “circumstantially” targeting a small city – that is one thing. Somebody applying for “.shanghai” trying to play tricks on the geo panel (and in fact on the entire ICANN community, and the city community of Shanghai): not cool. Doesn’t fly. In my email I will also specifically explain why this is deemed a risk in the next round when there weren’t any notable problems in the 2012 round. If anybody is interested in hearing my notion on that problematic: shout out to me – and I will elaborate further. In that light I suggest the following language (this is so to speak the litmus test whether an applicant needs a letter of non-objection). An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if: 2012 AGB: a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name Revision: a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name This way a brand applicant should generally have no problem at all (closed gTLD). And an applicant for a generic dictionary term with broad utilization in the DNS should also have no problems. But we would prevent that lazy (or cheating) applicants skip the line – and go for a city name WITHOUT looping in the city. That would be unfair to applicants that get the city’s support, unfair to the city itself and unfair to the city’s constituents. Comments? It would be nice if members that support this language would make themselves heard. I would wish to see my recommendation prominently positioned in the report – that will only happen if my notion finds support. Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 12:43 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 - 03 October 2018 Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (03 October). 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. Please also find attached the referenced document in PDF and Word including comments. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items: Actions: ACTION ITEM: Preliminary recommendation #2: Add a footnote explaining what "character" means Notes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates 2. Draft Initial Report Sections: Preliminary Recommendations, Options, and Questions -- Comments about missing points -- the deliberation sections are still to come. This is just three sections of six. -- These are just arguments/recommendations/options at this point. -- The question is are these the right alternatives to put out for public comment. -- Questions for community input -- asking if these make sense and if anything is missing. -- Any content is subject to public comment. Preliminary recommendation #1: -- Use of the word "certain" suggests there are other strings we have not addressed. Suggest deleting the word. -- Can we make it clear here that we are talking about the AGB as written rather than as applied? I don't think we want as applied. Preliminary recommendation #2: -- Question: We don't give any explanation for why we are making this recommendation. Answer: The explanation will be reflected in the deliberations in the Initial Report. Section C is just the text of the deliberations. There will be much more text in Section F on the deliberations, including pros and cons. -- Looking at the last bullet point re: WT2 considering letter-number combinations -- should this also refer to number-number combinations? ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote explaining what "character" means. Preliminary recommendation #3: -- Move this into the category of strings that could be applied for with documentation on support or non-objection. -- See also comments from Christopher Wilkinson. -- There were discussions about how many of these are generic words as well as three-letter country codes. There was a wider debate that was outside of scope since it was ccNSO territory. With that in mind that is how we got to this recommendation. There was quite a lot of debate on this. -- Do we need to clarify that we are not recommending that any 3-character codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard be removed from delegation? Or that .com should be removed from delegation? -- Could have country names that could be delegated -- if Canada wants .canada there should be a pathway for them to getting it. -- Not in favor of allowing the delegation of geographic names for non-geographic use. Preliminary recommendation #4: -- The problem is that we have not gotten agreement on prior authorization and geographical use. As long as we have no consensus we have to maintain this restriction. Recommendation #5: -- Question: We say we recommend continuing something in the AGB but then we say it's a revision. Are we saying the AGB is inconsistent with GNSO policy? Answer: Some members would like to see whether there is a discrepancy between the AGB and the policy -- so saying it is consistent with the AGB, but is not consistent with the policy. -- Suggest: "As noted above this recommendation is consistent with the AGB as written [not "as drafted"] and doesn't address the issue of translation of these strings. However, this is a revision to GNSO policy..." -- Agree with the change above but not the order. You had the policy first and then the AGB. -- Maybe need an explanation somewhere at the beginning of the document. Preliminary recommendation #6 -- The only thing that is listed are the code --- there are no names associated with a code as "exceptionally reserved". -- This is a category that was in the 2012 AGB. -- Example is "UK" -- The code is reserved on the ISO site, but not the name. -- Append a list for the actual report. -- When there is something reserved it doesn't mean that it is connected the specific area where we talk about it. As to whether there is a list -- there used to be a list available on request from the ISO secretariat. Preliminary recommendation #7: No objections Preliminary recommendation #8: Third bullet has same issue as mentioned above -- No "exceptionally reserved" in the ISO 3166. Preliminary recommendation #9: No objections Preliminary recommendation #10: No objections Preliminary recommendation #11: Comments from the list: -- Discussion of intended use is included in the deliberation section, including pros and cons. -- Comment premature to include this preliminary recommendation as it stands. -- Consider the use of the word "primarily" as in "use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name". Maybe it isn't quite the right word, but we would want to avoid unintended consequences. Also, not clear what we mean by "use". This language was in the 2012 AGB -- not saying it was perfect, but don't recall this ever becoming an issue with a city name. Before we suggest changes let's look at what happened in 2012. -- One could also say if the applicant considers any use for the city he will have to get a letter from the city. -- There has been a lot of back and forth on this issue -- we need to really take a look at whether we want to foreclose a bunch of words. -- Ignores free expression rights to use words with geographic meaning in lawful ways. -- Could address by putting in a contractual requirement that is more specific continuing to not use a TLD in a geographic sense. Preliminary recommendation #12: -- Need a separate recommendation dealing with the currency codes (ISO 4217). they are very important in the financial markets. -- Don't support adding protection of the currency code. -- The sub-national place names should be open for reservation for non-geographic uses without a letter of support or non-objection. 2. ICANN63: -- Released 3 subsections of the Initial Report. Only a few comments so far. -- Idea is to give people another week to submit comment, and then we will release the full package of the Initial Report. -- Idea is that in addition to doing status updates and outreach at ICANN63 we'll have time to potentially get broader community input on issues, as well as to note what might be missing. -- Three sessions on Saturday morning with lunch at the last session. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear All I share , to a great extent,the view points of Alexander as described in his preliminary reply Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 4 Oct 2018, at 23:49, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi WT 5,
Over the weekend I will submit a longer comment about the issue of the terminology in “recommendation 11” = non-capital cities (pages 4 and 5 of 21 in the word document “DRAFT - WT5 Initial Report - Sections C-E - 27.9.2018 - with comments-1”)
The text right now states (unchanged from the 2012 AGB) that applicants ONLY require a “letter of non-objection” from the relevant authorities (city government) if: a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name
I will elaborate on both: “use” (by the applicant) and “primarily”. In my mind BOTH will have to be reversed: · “foreseeable use” by the “REGISTRANTS” (rather than then “intended or projected use by the applicant entity”) · and not limited to “primary use”– but something like “significant use”. “Primarily” could arguably be considered “90% or more”. “Significant” would probably start at 20% or the like. The geo panel would need a few guidelines here as well!
I don’t care what or what not an applicant is dreaming of – that needs to be determined by the geo panel! If it is a closed brand application: obviously the case is clear. If it is a generic term like “rock” (music) and there is a small city of a few thousand people named “Rock”: it’s kind of clear that the significant majority of registrants will use the 2nd level domains in connotation with “Rock Music” (or other generic meanings of the term “rock” like moon.rock). But if somebody were to apply for an open gTLD .chicago, .shanghai or .frankfurt and would claim that there is “no primary use associated with the city intended” – sorry: then the applicant is either delusional or tries to circumvent the necessity to acquire a letter of non-objection from the relevant city Government. This litmus test should NOT be outsourced to the APPLICANT – but it should be a task executed by the geo-panel. You can’t make the goat the gardener. At least WE (ICANN) should not do so. A brand or a real generic term based application that is only “circumstantially” targeting a small city – that is one thing. Somebody applying for “.shanghai” trying to play tricks on the geo panel (and in fact on the entire ICANN community, and the city community of Shanghai): not cool. Doesn’t fly.
In my email I will also specifically explain why this is deemed a risk in the next round when there weren’t any notable problems in the 2012 round. If anybody is interested in hearing my notion on that problematic: shout out to me – and I will elaborate further.
In that light I suggest the following language (this is so to speak the litmus test whether an applicant needs a letter of non-objection).
An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if: 2012 AGB: a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name Revision: a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name
This way a brand applicant should generally have no problem at all (closed gTLD). And an applicant for a generic dictionary term with broad utilization in the DNS should also have no problems. But we would prevent that lazy (or cheating) applicants skip the line – and go for a city name WITHOUT looping in the city. That would be unfair to applicants that get the city’s support, unfair to the city itself and unfair to the city’s constituents.
Comments? It would be nice if members that support this language would make themselves heard. I would wish to see my recommendation prominently positioned in the report – that will only happen if my notion finds support.
Alexander.berlin
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 12:43 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 - 03 October 2018
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (03 October). 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.
Please also find attached the referenced document in PDF and Word including comments.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items:
Actions:
ACTION ITEM: Preliminary recommendation #2: Add a footnote explaining what "character" means
Notes:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates
2. Draft Initial Report Sections: Preliminary Recommendations, Options, and Questions
-- Comments about missing points -- the deliberation sections are still to come. This is just three sections of six. -- These are just arguments/recommendations/options at this point. -- The question is are these the right alternatives to put out for public comment. -- Questions for community input -- asking if these make sense and if anything is missing. -- Any content is subject to public comment.
Preliminary recommendation #1: -- Use of the word "certain" suggests there are other strings we have not addressed. Suggest deleting the word. -- Can we make it clear here that we are talking about the AGB as written rather than as applied? I don't think we want as applied.
Preliminary recommendation #2: -- Question: We don't give any explanation for why we are making this recommendation. Answer: The explanation will be reflected in the deliberations in the Initial Report. Section C is just the text of the deliberations. There will be much more text in Section F on the deliberations, including pros and cons. -- Looking at the last bullet point re: WT2 considering letter-number combinations -- should this also refer to number-number combinations? ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote explaining what "character" means.
Preliminary recommendation #3: -- Move this into the category of strings that could be applied for with documentation on support or non-objection. -- See also comments from Christopher Wilkinson. -- There were discussions about how many of these are generic words as well as three-letter country codes. There was a wider debate that was outside of scope since it was ccNSO territory. With that in mind that is how we got to this recommendation. There was quite a lot of debate on this. -- Do we need to clarify that we are not recommending that any 3-character codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard be removed from delegation? Or that .com should be removed from delegation? -- Could have country names that could be delegated -- if Canada wants .canada there should be a pathway for them to getting it. -- Not in favor of allowing the delegation of geographic names for non-geographic use.
Preliminary recommendation #4: -- The problem is that we have not gotten agreement on prior authorization and geographical use. As long as we have no consensus we have to maintain this restriction.
Recommendation #5: -- Question: We say we recommend continuing something in the AGB but then we say it's a revision. Are we saying the AGB is inconsistent with GNSO policy? Answer: Some members would like to see whether there is a discrepancy between the AGB and the policy -- so saying it is consistent with the AGB, but is not consistent with the policy. -- Suggest: "As noted above this recommendation is consistent with the AGB as written [not "as drafted"] and doesn't address the issue of translation of these strings. However, this is a revision to GNSO policy..." -- Agree with the change above but not the order. You had the policy first and then the AGB. -- Maybe need an explanation somewhere at the beginning of the document.
Preliminary recommendation #6 -- The only thing that is listed are the code --- there are no names associated with a code as "exceptionally reserved". -- This is a category that was in the 2012 AGB. -- Example is "UK" -- The code is reserved on the ISO site, but not the name. -- Append a list for the actual report. -- When there is something reserved it doesn't mean that it is connected the specific area where we talk about it. As to whether there is a list -- there used to be a list available on request from the ISO secretariat.
Preliminary recommendation #7: No objections
Preliminary recommendation #8: Third bullet has same issue as mentioned above -- No "exceptionally reserved" in the ISO 3166.
Preliminary recommendation #9: No objections
Preliminary recommendation #10: No objections
Preliminary recommendation #11: Comments from the list: -- Discussion of intended use is included in the deliberation section, including pros and cons. -- Comment premature to include this preliminary recommendation as it stands. -- Consider the use of the word "primarily" as in "use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name". Maybe it isn't quite the right word, but we would want to avoid unintended consequences. Also, not clear what we mean by "use". This language was in the 2012 AGB -- not saying it was perfect, but don't recall this ever becoming an issue with a city name. Before we suggest changes let's look at what happened in 2012. -- One could also say if the applicant considers any use for the city he will have to get a letter from the city. -- There has been a lot of back and forth on this issue -- we need to really take a look at whether we want to foreclose a bunch of words. -- Ignores free expression rights to use words with geographic meaning in lawful ways. -- Could address by putting in a contractual requirement that is more specific continuing to not use a TLD in a geographic sense.
Preliminary recommendation #12: -- Need a separate recommendation dealing with the currency codes (ISO 4217). they are very important in the financial markets. -- Don't support adding protection of the currency code. -- The sub-national place names should be open for reservation for non-geographic uses without a letter of support or non-objection.
2. ICANN63:
-- Released 3 subsections of the Initial Report. Only a few comments so far. -- Idea is to give people another week to submit comment, and then we will release the full package of the Initial Report. -- Idea is that in addition to doing status updates and outreach at ICANN63 we'll have time to potentially get broader community input on issues, as well as to note what might be missing. -- Three sessions on Saturday morning with lunch at the last session. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
participants (5)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Arasteh -
Dessalegn Yehuala -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Marita Moll