the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name
The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name! I would like to second Christopher: While not having created too much havoc in the 2012 round that provision WOULD BE heavily abused in the next round. Other than the trade mark lobby (which is WELL paid to lobby the TM interests): Who ELSE objects Christopher’s suggestion to abandon “the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name”? Somebody OUTSIDE the TM lobby? Or the other way around: Who else seconds Christopher’s suggestion to abandon “the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name”? A geo name is a geo name – once delegated to somebody the constituents and citizens of that geo-location are deprived to utilize the string to identify themselves in the DNS forever. Inacceptable. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:46 PM To: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Christopher wrote: 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) There has been significant— repeated — objection to that proposition, so no, you may not take it that it is agreed in WT5. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that. Greg On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:39 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> > wrote: Good afternoon: With respect, this is the first time that I have perceived that in 2012, Geo-Names Review was different from the Geo-Names Panel. I shall try and get my head around that! Meanwhile, it would clearly be an advantage to have a review function available for ALL Geo-related applications, up front, BEFORE applicants and the mechanisms spend time and money on the approval procedures. I have already posted several comments that would significantly reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications. Pour Memoire: 1. The application should be from an entity within the jurisdiction of the geo-name in question, and the proposed TLD Registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction. There should not be any incorporations in third country tax havens. 2. There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may be applied for by any one entity. 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and during implementation. Regards CW PS: Since all applications for Geo-Names should have received non-objection letters from the appropriate authorities, I might imagine that the scope for String Contention would be considerably reduced if not eliminated.
Alexander, I’d love you to explain how you think this would work in practice – see my rock example which has crossed with yours and has nothing to do with trademarks Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: 16 May 2018 22:25 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name! I would like to second Christopher: While not having created too much havoc in the 2012 round that provision WOULD BE heavily abused in the next round. Other than the trade mark lobby (which is WELL paid to lobby the TM interests): Who ELSE objects Christopher’s suggestion to abandon “the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name”? Somebody OUTSIDE the TM lobby? Or the other way around: Who else seconds Christopher’s suggestion to abandon “the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name”? A geo name is a geo name – once delegated to somebody the constituents and citizens of that geo-location are deprived to utilize the string to identify themselves in the DNS forever. Inacceptable. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:46 PM To: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Christopher wrote: 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) There has been significant— repeated — objection to that proposition, so no, you may not take it that it is agreed in WT5. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that. Greg On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:39 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Good afternoon: With respect, this is the first time that I have perceived that in 2012, Geo-Names Review was different from the Geo-Names Panel. I shall try and get my head around that! Meanwhile, it would clearly be an advantage to have a review function available for ALL Geo-related applications, up front, BEFORE applicants and the mechanisms spend time and money on the approval procedures. I have already posted several comments that would significantly reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications. Pour Memoire: 1. The application should be from an entity within the jurisdiction of the geo-name in question, and the proposed TLD Registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction. There should not be any incorporations in third country tax havens. 2. There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may be applied for by any one entity. 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and during implementation. Regards CW PS: Since all applications for Geo-Names should have received non-objection letters from the appropriate authorities, I might imagine that the scope for String Contention would be considerably reduced if not eliminated.
Thanks for your input Susan. I agree with your concerns. Let’s all please remember that a geographic term is just that but it can also be many many other things. In the ICANN context, that is the nature of contention for a string. We should not be prescriptive, exclusionary or attempt to create unnecessary limitations. I wanted to engage further on both Alexander and Christopher’s points about limiting the numbers of applications for certain types of applicants for TLDs. That is most certainly not going to fly. ICANN mission is explicit on its commitment to encouraging competition in the marketplace and on extending opportunities for end users to choose. Apart from that, competition authorities in national jurisdictions would have plenty to say about an arbitrary limit imposed on applicants who can validly demonstrate they meet the terms and conditions for any application process. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au> Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. On 17 May 2018, at 7:28 am, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> wrote: Alexander, I’d love you to explain how you think this would work in practice – see my rock example which has crossed with yours and has nothing to do with trademarks Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: 16 May 2018 22:25 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name! I would like to second Christopher: While not having created too much havoc in the 2012 round that provision WOULD BE heavily abused in the next round. Other than the trade mark lobby (which is WELL paid to lobby the TM interests): Who ELSE objects Christopher’s suggestion to abandon “the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name”? Somebody OUTSIDE the TM lobby? Or the other way around: Who else seconds Christopher’s suggestion to abandon “the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name”? A geo name is a geo name – once delegated to somebody the constituents and citizens of that geo-location are deprived to utilize the string to identify themselves in the DNS forever. Inacceptable. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:46 PM To: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Christopher wrote: 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) There has been significant— repeated — objection to that proposition, so no, you may not take it that it is agreed in WT5. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that. Greg On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:39 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Good afternoon: With respect, this is the first time that I have perceived that in 2012, Geo-Names Review was different from the Geo-Names Panel. I shall try and get my head around that! Meanwhile, it would clearly be an advantage to have a review function available for ALL Geo-related applications, up front, BEFORE applicants and the mechanisms spend time and money on the approval procedures. I have already posted several comments that would significantly reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications. Pour Memoire: 1. The application should be from an entity within the jurisdiction of the geo-name in question, and the proposed TLD Registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction. There should not be any incorporations in third country tax havens. 2. There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may be applied for by any one entity. 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and during implementation. Regards CW PS: Since all applications for Geo-Names should have received non-objection letters from the appropriate authorities, I might imagine that the scope for String Contention would be considerably reduced if not eliminated. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Hi Liz, I am NOT suggesting to limit the number of applications per applicant – partly because it can always be gamed. What I am suggesting is that a few entities will blanket the ENTIRE city gTLD namespace with thousands of applications. And sorry: I am steadfast convinced that none of those registries will be willing or able to serve the city constituent’s interests! And therefore we make rules that PROTECT the interests of the citizens and constituencies and stakeholder groups in a city: by requiring support by their elected Government! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Williams Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:40 AM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name Thanks for your input Susan. I agree with your concerns. Let’s all please remember that a geographic term is just that but it can also be many many other things. In the ICANN context, that is the nature of contention for a string. We should not be prescriptive, exclusionary or attempt to create unnecessary limitations. I wanted to engage further on both Alexander and Christopher’s points about limiting the numbers of applications for certain types of applicants for TLDs. That is most certainly not going to fly. ICANN mission is explicit on its commitment to encouraging competition in the marketplace and on extending opportunities for end users to choose. Apart from that, competition authorities in national jurisdictions would have plenty to say about an arbitrary limit imposed on applicants who can validly demonstrate they meet the terms and conditions for any application process. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au> Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. On 17 May 2018, at 7:28 am, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> > wrote: Alexander, I’d love you to explain how you think this would work in practice – see my rock example which has crossed with yours and has nothing to do with trademarks Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [ <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: 16 May 2018 22:25 To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name! I would like to second Christopher: While not having created too much havoc in the 2012 round that provision WOULD BE heavily abused in the next round. Other than the trade mark lobby (which is WELL paid to lobby the TM interests): Who ELSE objects Christopher’s suggestion to abandon “the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name”? Somebody OUTSIDE the TM lobby? Or the other way around: Who else seconds Christopher’s suggestion to abandon “the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name”? A geo name is a geo name – once delegated to somebody the constituents and citizens of that geo-location are deprived to utilize the string to identify themselves in the DNS forever. Inacceptable. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [ <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:46 PM To: <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Christopher wrote: 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) There has been significant— repeated — objection to that proposition, so no, you may not take it that it is agreed in WT5. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that. Greg On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:39 PM <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.euWilkinson < <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Good afternoon: With respect, this is the first time that I have perceived that in 2012, Geo-Names Review was different from the Geo-Names Panel. I shall try and get my head around that! Meanwhile, it would clearly be an advantage to have a review function available for ALL Geo-related applications, up front, BEFORE applicants and the mechanisms spend time and money on the approval procedures. I have already posted several comments that would significantly reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications. Pour Memoire: 1. The application should be from an entity within the jurisdiction of the geo-name in question, and the proposed TLD Registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction. There should not be any incorporations in third country tax havens. 2. There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may be applied for by any one entity. 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and during implementation. Regards CW PS: Since all applications for Geo-Names should have received non-objection letters from the appropriate authorities, I might imagine that the scope for String Contention would be considerably reduced if not eliminated. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Alexander: Couldn't your scenario of an applicant applying for multiple city names simply be covered by the requirement that an applicant needs city approval if they are using the TLD related to the city name? In other words, an applicant blanketing the round with city applications should by definition be using the TLD as related to the city and require city approval. We easily could amend the 2012 language to make that clear. Christopher: I definitely disagree with your statement below and there have been many interventions on the list over the past weeks objecting to the abandonment you propose.
3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?)
For the record, I also object to your other two proposals -- 1) requiring or prohibiting specific locations for incorporation and 2) limiting the number of applications per applicant. Best, Jon
On May 16, 2018, at 5:53 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi Liz,
I am NOT suggesting to limit the number of applications per applicant – partly because it can always be gamed. What I am suggesting is that a few entities will blanket the ENTIRE city gTLD namespace with thousands of applications. And sorry: I am steadfast convinced that none of those registries will be willing or able to serve the city constituent’s interests!
And therefore we make rules that PROTECT the interests of the citizens and constituencies and stakeholder groups in a city: by requiring support by their elected Government!
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Williams Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:40 AM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name
Thanks for your input Susan. I agree with your concerns.
Let’s all please remember that a geographic term is just that but it can also be many many other things. In the ICANN context, that is the nature of contention for a string. We should not be prescriptive, exclusionary or attempt to create unnecessary limitations.
I wanted to engage further on both Alexander and Christopher’s points about limiting the numbers of applications for certain types of applicants for TLDs. That is most certainly not going to fly. ICANN mission is explicit on its commitment to encouraging competition in the marketplace and on extending opportunities for end users to choose. Apart from that, competition authorities in national jurisdictions would have plenty to say about an arbitrary limit imposed on applicants who can validly demonstrate they meet the terms and conditions for any application process.
Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/>
Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
On 17 May 2018, at 7:28 am, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> wrote:
Alexander, I’d love you to explain how you think this would work in practice – see my rock example which has crossed with yours and has nothing to do with trademarks <>
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: 16 May 2018 22:25 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name
The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name!
I would like to second Christopher: While not having created too much havoc in the 2012 round that provision WOULD BE heavily abused in the next round.
Other than the trade mark lobby (which is WELL paid to lobby the TM interests): Who ELSE objects Christopher’s suggestion to abandon “the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name”? Somebody OUTSIDE the TM lobby?
Or the other way around: Who else seconds Christopher’s suggestion to abandon “the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name”? A geo name is a geo name – once delegated to somebody the constituents and citizens of that geo-location are deprived to utilize the string to identify themselves in the DNS forever. Inacceptable.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:46 PM To: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
Christopher wrote:
3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) There has been significant— repeated — objection to that proposition, so no, you may not take it that it is agreed in WT5.
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that.
Greg
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:39 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:
Good afternoon: With respect, this is the first time that I have perceived that in 2012, Geo-Names Review was different from the Geo-Names Panel. I shall try and get my head around that! Meanwhile, it would clearly be an advantage to have a review function available for ALL Geo-related applications, up front, BEFORE applicants and the mechanisms spend time and money on the approval procedures.
I have already posted several comments that would significantly reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications. Pour Memoire: 1. The application should be from an entity within the jurisdiction of the geo-name in question, and the proposed TLD Registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction. There should not be any incorporations in third country tax havens.
2. There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may be applied for by any one entity. 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and during implementation. Regards CW PS: Since all applications for Geo-Names should have received non-objection letters from the appropriate authorities, I might imagine that the scope for String Contention would be considerably reduced if not eliminated.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Jon, Good idea – but in reality causes all kinds of problems. How to prove that the applicant entities are linked to each other? How many cities does one have to target to be subjected to the rule? A general support requirement by all relevant authorities of SIZEABLE (cut-off size) cities with identical name is way more effective in my mind – especially when combined with the elimination of “non-geo use” in such cases. Thanks, Alexander From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@donuts.email] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 1:21 AM To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name Alexander: Couldn't your scenario of an applicant applying for multiple city names simply be covered by the requirement that an applicant needs city approval if they are using the TLD related to the city name? In other words, an applicant blanketing the round with city applications should by definition be using the TLD as related to the city and require city approval. We easily could amend the 2012 language to make that clear. Christopher: I definitely disagree with your statement below and there have been many interventions on the list over the past weeks objecting to the abandonment you propose. 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) For the record, I also object to your other two proposals -- 1) requiring or prohibiting specific locations for incorporation and 2) limiting the number of applications per applicant. Best, Jon On May 16, 2018, at 5:53 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Hi Liz, I am NOT suggesting to limit the number of applications per applicant – partly because it can always be gamed. What I am suggesting is that a few entities will blanket the ENTIRE city gTLD namespace with thousands of applications. And sorry: I am steadfast convinced that none of those registries will be willing or able to serve the city constituent’s interests! And therefore we make rules that PROTECT the interests of the citizens and constituencies and stakeholder groups in a city: by requiring support by their elected Government! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Williams Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:40 AM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name Thanks for your input Susan. I agree with your concerns. Let’s all please remember that a geographic term is just that but it can also be many many other things. In the ICANN context, that is the nature of contention for a string. We should not be prescriptive, exclusionary or attempt to create unnecessary limitations. I wanted to engage further on both Alexander and Christopher’s points about limiting the numbers of applications for certain types of applicants for TLDs. That is most certainly not going to fly. ICANN mission is explicit on its commitment to encouraging competition in the marketplace and on extending opportunities for end users to choose. Apart from that, competition authorities in national jurisdictions would have plenty to say about an arbitrary limit imposed on applicants who can validly demonstrate they meet the terms and conditions for any application process. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> liz.williams@auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> www.auda.org.au Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. On 17 May 2018, at 7:28 am, Susan Payne < <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote: Alexander, I’d love you to explain how you think this would work in practice – see my rock example which has crossed with yours and has nothing to do with trademarks Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [ <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: 16 May 2018 22:25 To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name! I would like to second Christopher: While not having created too much havoc in the 2012 round that provision WOULD BE heavily abused in the next round. Other than the trade mark lobby (which is WELL paid to lobby the TM interests): Who ELSE objects Christopher’s suggestion to abandon “the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name”? Somebody OUTSIDE the TM lobby? Or the other way around: Who else seconds Christopher’s suggestion to abandon “the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name”? A geo name is a geo name – once delegated to somebody the constituents and citizens of that geo-location are deprived to utilize the string to identify themselves in the DNS forever. Inacceptable. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [ <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:46 PM To: <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Christopher wrote: 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) There has been significant— repeated — objection to that proposition, so no, you may not take it that it is agreed in WT5. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that. Greg On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:39 PM <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.euWilkinson < <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Good afternoon: With respect, this is the first time that I have perceived that in 2012, Geo-Names Review was different from the Geo-Names Panel. I shall try and get my head around that! Meanwhile, it would clearly be an advantage to have a review function available for ALL Geo-related applications, up front, BEFORE applicants and the mechanisms spend time and money on the approval procedures. I have already posted several comments that would significantly reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications. Pour Memoire: 1. The application should be from an entity within the jurisdiction of the geo-name in question, and the proposed TLD Registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction. There should not be any incorporations in third country tax havens. 2. There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may be applied for by any one entity. 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and during implementation. Regards CW PS: Since all applications for Geo-Names should have received non-objection letters from the appropriate authorities, I might imagine that the scope for String Contention would be considerably reduced if not eliminated. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
As I’ve stated several times on this list, freedom of expression advocates do not agree with Christopher’s suggestion, and we remain opposed to prohibiting words because they may have a geographic reference. There is no basis in international law or in reason for such a proposal which restricts people’s right to use words that refer to a geographic feature, especially when they aren’t even referring to that geographic feature. Such a proposal is a massive infringement of freedom of speech, which IS recognized in international law and which ICANN IS obligated to respect. Please remember the New GTLD Policy Recommendation G which says the string evaluation process must not infringe the applicant’s freedom of expression rights, and which we are obligated to follow. Thanks, Robin
On May 16, 2018, at 2:25 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name!
I would like to second Christopher: While not having created too much havoc in the 2012 round that provision WOULD BE heavily abused in the next round.
Other than the trade mark lobby (which is WELL paid to lobby the TM interests): Who ELSE objects Christopher’s suggestion to abandon “the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name”? Somebody OUTSIDE the TM lobby?
Or the other way around: Who else seconds Christopher’s suggestion to abandon “the 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name”? A geo name is a geo name – once delegated to somebody the constituents and citizens of that geo-location are deprived to utilize the string to identify themselves in the DNS forever. Inacceptable.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:46 PM To: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
Christopher wrote:
3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?)
There has been significant— repeated — objection to that proposition, so no, you may not take it that it is agreed in WT5.
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that.
Greg
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:39 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:
Good afternoon:
With respect, this is the first time that I have perceived that in 2012, Geo-Names Review was different from the Geo-Names Panel. I shall try and get my head around that!
Meanwhile, it would clearly be an advantage to have a review function available for ALL Geo-related applications, up front, BEFORE applicants and the mechanisms spend time and money on the approval procedures.
I have already posted several comments that would significantly reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications. Pour Memoire:
1. The application should be from an entity within the jurisdiction of the geo-name in question, and the proposed TLD Registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction. There should not be any incorporations in third country tax havens.
2. There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may be applied for by any one entity.
3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?)
Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and during implementation.
Regards
CW
PS: Since all applications for Geo-Names should have received non-objection letters from the appropriate authorities, I might imagine that the scope for String Contention would be considerably reduced if not eliminated.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
participants (5)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Jon Nevett -
Liz Williams -
Robin Gross -
Susan Payne