Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: *MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us <MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us>* They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: *MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov <MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov>* (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. *I would agree with that general principal* since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we *not* assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna
Thank you Joe for this very informative explanation. For me the most important summary which I totally agree with, is suggestion #1: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist I think that a lot of valuable contributions have been stifled by "what-if" arguments that I believe have been barriers for progress for the group. I note that going into ICANN62, we have been reminded that unless a decision is made soon by WT5, then the 2012 AGB is the fallback, wasting the major effort that has been put into this project by a lot of people. I like your explanations and that they come from someone within the industry who is able to view impacts of the new gTLDs over the longer term. My 2c :) Maureen On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 6:11 AM, Joe Alagna <jalagna@afilias.info> wrote:
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
*MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us <MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us>*
They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
*MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov <MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov>* (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So…
3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. *I would agree with that general principal* since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world.
6. Shouldn’t we *not* assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Thanks for your comments, Mr. Alagna. All good faith and thoughtful comments like yours are always useful and constructive. A question: will you be attending ICANN62 in Panamá (or remotely)? If so, you should definitely bring your points forth, because I’m sure they will spark good conversation. Javier Rúa-Jovet ALAC +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Jun 22, 2018, at 2:11 PM, Joe Alagna <jalagna@afilias.info> wrote:
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us
They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So…
3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world.
6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
<worktrack5-alagna.pdf> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Hi Javier, Oh yes. I'm here; will be following the ccNSO tracks mostly. Thanks, Joe Alagna | Director of Business Development *| *Afilias <https://www.afilias.info> *jalagna@afilias.info <jalagna@afilias.info>* | Office +1 (858) 864 1348 | Mobile: +1 (951) 313 7200 <http://www.afilias.info>LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/joealagna/> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/joealagna> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 11:54 AM Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for your comments, Mr. Alagna.
All good faith and thoughtful comments like yours are always useful and constructive.
A question: will you be attending ICANN62 in Panamá (or remotely)? If so, you should definitely bring your points forth, because I’m sure they will spark good conversation.
Javier Rúa-Jovet ALAC
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Jun 22, 2018, at 2:11 PM, Joe Alagna <jalagna@afilias.info> wrote:
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
*MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us <MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us>*
They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
*MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov <MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov>* (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So…
3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. *I would agree with that general principal* since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world.
6. Shouldn’t we *not* assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
<worktrack5-alagna.pdf>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Great! I will get there late on Sunday. Javier Rúa-Jovet ALAC +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Jun 22, 2018, at 3:08 PM, Joe Alagna <jalagna@afilias.info> wrote:
Hi Javier,
Oh yes. I'm here; will be following the ccNSO tracks mostly.
Thanks, Joe Alagna | Director of Business Development | Afilias jalagna@afilias.info | Office +1 (858) 864 1348 | Mobile: +1 (951) 313 7200 LinkedIn | Twitter
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 11:54 AM Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks for your comments, Mr. Alagna.
All good faith and thoughtful comments like yours are always useful and constructive.
A question: will you be attending ICANN62 in Panamá (or remotely)? If so, you should definitely bring your points forth, because I’m sure they will spark good conversation.
Javier Rúa-Jovet ALAC
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Jun 22, 2018, at 2:11 PM, Joe Alagna <jalagna@afilias.info> wrote:
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us
They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So…
3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world.
6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
<worktrack5-alagna.pdf> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Hi Joe Thanks for your thoughtful comments. As I told you when you introduced them during my presentation at the LacTLD workshop yesterday, I think it is important that all view are put on the table. I do hope that you - and as many as possible - will participate in the special sessions where WT5 issues will be discussed, including the cross community workshop on geonames. Kindly Annebeth Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> 22. jun. 2018 kl. 13:12 skrev Joe Alagna <jalagna@afilias.info<mailto:jalagna@afilias.info>>: Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us<mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov<mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna <worktrack5-alagna.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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
Joe, Thanks for weighing. I agree with a great deal of what you say. On your first point, I and a number of others have addressed the rights and concerns regarding trademark rights, the rights of businesses and individuals who are brandowners, and the rights of consumers and other end-users; who rely on trademarks as signifiers of origin, quality and unique characteristics of the underlying businesses, products, goods and services. I’ve been consumed by other matters the last couple of weeks and I haven’t been as active on the list as I would like, but I’ll rectify that. I share your concerns about the idea that we could create hierarchies or preferences that would elevate one type of legitimate rights over another, whether it is between two applicants or between an applicant and a non-applicant. However, you group letters of non-objection/consent with curative rights, and state a preference for these over preventive rights. I would submit that letters of non-objection/consent ARE preventive rights and must be categorized as such. They certainly fit the criteria: they stand in the way of an application or potential application, they require permission to be granted before the applicant can proceed, and the failure to grant (or decision not to grant) the consent/non-objection prevents the applicant from moving forward. They also grant automatic preventive powers to ALL geonames (unless narrowed by this group), such that an applicant might have to get dozens of letters before they can move forward. Requiring applicants to run a gantlet of governmental bodies who have been granted not only a right merely for existing but a remedy that is already invoked unless they actively move out of the way is distressing, inconsistent with larger legal principles, inconsistent with permissionless innovation, and creates a hierarchy without basis in fact or law. Curative rights, on the other hand, don’t have any effect until they are invoked by a challenger, and each challenger only represents their own interests. When invoked, there is no presumption in favor of the challenger. The rights of the challenger vs. the applicant are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I share your preference for curative methods. However, there’s no basis for grouping letters of non-objection with curative rights when they function as preventive rights. Best regards, Greg On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 6:39 AM Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no> wrote:
Hi Joe
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. As I told you when you introduced them during my presentation at the LacTLD workshop yesterday, I think it is important that all view are put on the table. I do hope that you - and as many as possible - will participate in the special sessions where WT5 issues will be discussed, including the cross community workshop on geonames.
Kindly Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no
22. jun. 2018 kl. 13:12 skrev Joe Alagna <jalagna@afilias.info>:
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
*MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us <MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us>*
They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
*MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov <MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov>* (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So…
3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. *I would agree with that general principal* since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world.
6. Shouldn’t we *not* assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
<worktrack5-alagna.pdf>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Hi Greg, I would defer to your understanding of those things over mine. I appreciate you clarifying the differences. I read that guidebook over and over through every iteration from the first version to the final one in 2012. I even created and updated an index for it which never existed. But I’ve not gone to law school. :-). Thanks, - Joe | +1 (951) 313-7200 | Sent from (or dictated to) my iPhone; please excuse brevity & any typo/punc/cap errors. |
On Jun 23, 2018, at 5:29 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Joe,
Thanks for weighing. I agree with a great deal of what you say. On your first point, I and a number of others have addressed the rights and concerns regarding trademark rights, the rights of businesses and individuals who are brandowners, and the rights of consumers and other end-users; who rely on trademarks as signifiers of origin, quality and unique characteristics of the underlying businesses, products, goods and services. I’ve been consumed by other matters the last couple of weeks and I haven’t been as active on the list as I would like, but I’ll rectify that.
I share your concerns about the idea that we could create hierarchies or preferences that would elevate one type of legitimate rights over another, whether it is between two applicants or between an applicant and a non-applicant.
However, you group letters of non-objection/consent with curative rights, and state a preference for these over preventive rights. I would submit that letters of non-objection/consent ARE preventive rights and must be categorized as such. They certainly fit the criteria: they stand in the way of an application or potential application, they require permission to be granted before the applicant can proceed, and the failure to grant (or decision not to grant) the consent/non-objection prevents the applicant from moving forward. They also grant automatic preventive powers to ALL geonames (unless narrowed by this group), such that an applicant might have to get dozens of letters before they can move forward.
Requiring applicants to run a gantlet of governmental bodies who have been granted not only a right merely for existing but a remedy that is already invoked unless they actively move out of the way is distressing, inconsistent with larger legal principles, inconsistent with permissionless innovation, and creates a hierarchy without basis in fact or law.
Curative rights, on the other hand, don’t have any effect until they are invoked by a challenger, and each challenger only represents their own interests. When invoked, there is no presumption in favor of the challenger. The rights of the challenger vs. the applicant are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
I share your preference for curative methods. However, there’s no basis for grouping letters of non-objection with curative rights when they function as preventive rights.
Best regards,
Greg
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 6:39 AM Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no> wrote: Hi Joe
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. As I told you when you introduced them during my presentation at the LacTLD workshop yesterday, I think it is important that all view are put on the table. I do hope that you - and as many as possible - will participate in the special sessions where WT5 issues will be discussed, including the cross community workshop on geonames.
Kindly Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no
22. jun. 2018 kl. 13:12 skrev Joe Alagna <jalagna@afilias.info>:
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us
They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So…
3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world.
6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
<worktrack5-alagna.pdf>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear Joe First of all thanks very much for your valuable inputs. As you may have seen in the debates there are different views on the letter of non-objection. Some of us view it as a valuable tool that, according to the facts at hand, worked very well for many people involved. The few cases where the letter of non-objection applied and problems arose would still need to be analyzed in order to work out fixes to address the potential issues… Part of this view is that the letter of non-objection is a requirement, not a right, which is open to any interested applicant to comply with, be it a brand, a business, a community etc. And that the non-objection requirement allows for an early interaction of applicants with public authorities, which have rights, interests and responsibilities on what are regarded as identity signifiers of their communities, avoiding costly conflicts at later stages of the process. Looking forward to fruitful discussions here in Panama Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Joe Alagna Gesendet: Sonntag, 24. Juni 2018 05:35 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi Greg, I would defer to your understanding of those things over mine. I appreciate you clarifying the differences. I read that guidebook over and over through every iteration from the first version to the final one in 2012. I even created and updated an index for it which never existed. But I’ve not gone to law school. :-). Thanks, - Joe | +1 (951) 313-7200 | Sent from (or dictated to) my iPhone; please excuse brevity & any typo/punc/cap errors. | On Jun 23, 2018, at 5:29 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Joe, Thanks for weighing. I agree with a great deal of what you say. On your first point, I and a number of others have addressed the rights and concerns regarding trademark rights, the rights of businesses and individuals who are brandowners, and the rights of consumers and other end-users; who rely on trademarks as signifiers of origin, quality and unique characteristics of the underlying businesses, products, goods and services. I’ve been consumed by other matters the last couple of weeks and I haven’t been as active on the list as I would like, but I’ll rectify that. I share your concerns about the idea that we could create hierarchies or preferences that would elevate one type of legitimate rights over another, whether it is between two applicants or between an applicant and a non-applicant. However, you group letters of non-objection/consent with curative rights, and state a preference for these over preventive rights. I would submit that letters of non-objection/consent ARE preventive rights and must be categorized as such. They certainly fit the criteria: they stand in the way of an application or potential application, they require permission to be granted before the applicant can proceed, and the failure to grant (or decision not to grant) the consent/non-objection prevents the applicant from moving forward. They also grant automatic preventive powers to ALL geonames (unless narrowed by this group), such that an applicant might have to get dozens of letters before they can move forward. Requiring applicants to run a gantlet of governmental bodies who have been granted not only a right merely for existing but a remedy that is already invoked unless they actively move out of the way is distressing, inconsistent with larger legal principles, inconsistent with permissionless innovation, and creates a hierarchy without basis in fact or law. Curative rights, on the other hand, don’t have any effect until they are invoked by a challenger, and each challenger only represents their own interests. When invoked, there is no presumption in favor of the challenger. The rights of the challenger vs. the applicant are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I share your preference for curative methods. However, there’s no basis for grouping letters of non-objection with curative rights when they function as preventive rights. Best regards, Greg On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 6:39 AM Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> wrote: Hi Joe Thanks for your thoughtful comments. As I told you when you introduced them during my presentation at the LacTLD workshop yesterday, I think it is important that all view are put on the table. I do hope that you - and as many as possible - will participate in the special sessions where WT5 issues will be discussed, including the cross community workshop on geonames. Kindly Annebeth Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> 22. jun. 2018 kl. 13:12 skrev Joe Alagna <jalagna@afilias.info<mailto:jalagna@afilias.info>>: Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us<mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov<mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna <worktrack5-alagna.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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 Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….” Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: * We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement * In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”) o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities * All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. * The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): * There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms! * In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! * So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? * Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! * Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? * The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). * As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! * The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! * I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! * The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: * Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! * In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) * And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: <mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: <mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna
Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this. Not totally happy with "To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)." But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that. If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust. Marita On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear Joe,
thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state:
*/“……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around/*
*/ the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….”/*
Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view:
·We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement
·In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely:
oUnesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”)
oISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME)
oCapital cities
·All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules.
·The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up).
There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations):
·There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms!
·In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility!
·So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them?
·Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use!
·Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city?
·The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included).
·As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise!
·The compromise needs to:
oProtect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains!
oBut to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants!
·I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it:
oIn order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on).
oSo if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important!
oTo reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city).
oSuch cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying!
·The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”!
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
·*Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
·*In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
·*And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!*
The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise.
A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable?
Anyone in?
Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Joe Alagna *Sent:* Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1.Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2.There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
*_MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us <mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us>_** * They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
*_MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov <mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov>_*(or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So…
3.Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a.Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b.Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c.Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4.Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5.There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. /I would agree with that general principal/ since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world.
6.Shouldn’t we _not_ assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a.A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b.A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c.Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d.There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear WT5 colleagues, Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: " *So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:* · *Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!* · *In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)* · *And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!"* This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop. Kind regards, Heather Forrest On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this.
Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)."
But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that.
If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust.
Marita On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear Joe,
thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state:
* “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around*
* the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….”*
Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view:
· We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement
· In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely:
o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”)
o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME)
o Capital cities
· All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules.
· The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up).
There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations):
· There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms!
· In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility!
· So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them?
· Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use!
· Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city?
· The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included).
· As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise!
· The compromise needs to:
o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains!
o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants!
· I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it:
o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on).
o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important!
o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city).
o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying!
· The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”!
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
· *Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
· *In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
· *And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!*
The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise.
A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable?
Anyone in?
Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Joe Alagna *Sent:* Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
*MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us <MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us>*
They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
*MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov <MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov>* (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So…
3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. *I would agree with that general principal* since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world.
6. Shouldn’t we *not* assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://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
Absolutely Heather Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street<x-apple-data-detectors://0/1> London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom<x-apple-data-detectors://0/1> E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255<tel:+44%2020%207421%208255> T: +44 20 7421 8299<tel:+44%2020%207421%208299> M: +44 7971 661175<tel:+44%207971%20661175> Sent from my iPhone On 25 Jun 2018, at 16:43, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear WT5 colleagues, Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: " So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!" This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop. Kind regards, Heather Forrest On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this. Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)." But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that. If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust. Marita On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….” Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: • We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement • In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”) o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities • All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. • The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): • There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms! • In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! • So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? • Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! • Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? • The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). • As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! • The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! • I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! • The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us<mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov<mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Hello everyone I couldn’t agree with Heather more. It is insufficient and lazy to rely on 2007 policy recommendations and 2012 implementation of an AGB. We can and must do better. 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 25 Jun 2018, at 4:42 pm, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear WT5 colleagues, Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: " So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!" This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop. Kind regards, Heather Forrest On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this. Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)." But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that. If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust. Marita On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….” Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: • We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement • In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”) o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities • All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. • The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): • There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms! • In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! • So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? • Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! • Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? • The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). • As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! • The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! • I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! • The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us<mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov<mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
+1 It is Alexander’s position but not at all a consensus P Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Liz Williams Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 7:35 PM To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hello everyone I couldn’t agree with Heather more. It is insufficient and lazy to rely on 2007 policy recommendations and 2012 implementation of an AGB. We can and must do better. 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 25 Jun 2018, at 4:42 pm, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com <mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear WT5 colleagues, Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: " So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: * Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! * In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) * And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!" This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop. Kind regards, Heather Forrest On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> > wrote: Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this. Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)." But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that. If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust. Marita On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….” Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: * We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement * In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”) o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities * All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. * The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): * There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms! * In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! * So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? * Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! * Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? * The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). * As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! * The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! * I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! * The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: * Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! * In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) * And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: <mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: <mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Hi there, I have summarized the issue FROM MY VIEW: “Let me summarize from my view:” And maybe we should start to agree on the very basis of our work: It has been NUMEROUS times asked (and then confirmed) that we aren’t inventing the wheel a second time, but rather take the 2012 AGB and review it thoroughly. Or is that only valid for the wider GNSO subsequent round PDP group but not the WT5? Maybe we can agree on the very basis of our work for once. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 1:18 PM To: 'Liz Williams' <liz.williams@auda.org.au>; 'Heather Forrest' <haforrestesq@gmail.com> Cc: 'Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments +1 It is Alexander’s position but not at all a consensus P Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Liz Williams Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 7:35 PM To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com <mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com> > Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hello everyone I couldn’t agree with Heather more. It is insufficient and lazy to rely on 2007 policy recommendations and 2012 implementation of an AGB. We can and must do better. 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 25 Jun 2018, at 4:42 pm, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com <mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear WT5 colleagues, Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: " So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: * Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! * In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) * And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!" This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop. Kind regards, Heather Forrest On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> > wrote: Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this. Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)." But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that. If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust. Marita On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….” Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: * We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement * In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”) o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities * All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. * The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): * There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms! * In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! * So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? * Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! * Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? * The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). * As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! * The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! * I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! * The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: * Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! * In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) * And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: <mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: <mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear Heather, sorry, I should have said: “being floated by me”. And indeed there has been quite some support for it, particularly from the GAC cloud. The question is: What else has been floated? The TM lobby floats the idea that “the market will regulate everything” – and suggests to auction off invaluable and essential city internet infrastructure resources to the highest bidder! I hope the GAC is watching – and alarmed. Only second to countries the category of cities is THE identifier for a super large portion of the world’s population, especially in the “developed” (terrible word actually) world (which utilizes the Internet most). Selling these resources to the highest bidder seems ridiculous. Citizens of those cities need to weigh in – their elected city Government speaks for them! Maybe somebody “neutral” could summarize the suggested measures for the treatment of (non-capital) cities? Right now an applicant (for a non-capital city) requires Government support only if there is geo-use intent! * Do we keep it that way, * do we protect important (e.g. sizeable) cities a bit more, * or do we skip the protections completely? Seems these are the 3 choices. In MY view! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:42 AM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Dear WT5 colleagues, Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: " So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: * Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! * In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) * And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!" This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop. Kind regards, Heather Forrest On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> > wrote: Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this. Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)." But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that. If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust. Marita On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….” Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: * We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement * In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”) o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities * All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. * The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): * There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms! * In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! * So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? * Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! * Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? * The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). * As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! * The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! * I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! * The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: * Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! * In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) * And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: <mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: <mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna _______________________________________________ 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
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Maybe somebody “neutral” could summarize the suggested measures for the *treatment of (non-capital) cities*? Right now an applicant (for a non-capital city) requires Government support only if there is geo-use intent!
· Do we keep it that way,
· do we protect important (e.g. sizeable) cities a bit more,
· or do we skip the protections completely?
Seems these are the 3 choices. In MY view!
I would say there are more choices, or at least more variations, based on the type of mechanism used. There are mechanisms that come before the application is filed (e.g., the letter of consent/non-objection), mechanisms that come after the application is filed but during the application process (e.g., objections, and also letters of c/n-o if it's determined you must have one), and mechanisms that come after the TLD is delegated (Compliance issues, Dispute Resolution Procedures).
In some of these mechanisms, the "protectable right" is presumed (letter of consent/non-objection) and in others the "protectable right" must be proven (basically, all of the other mechanisms). How these variables could apply to protection of a category of geographic terms is critical. "Protection" could be acceptable with one set of variables and unacceptable with another set of variables. For example, the right to make an objection may be an acceptable protection where a letter of c/n-j is not.
If we frame this only as a choice between letters of consent/non-objection or no "protection" at all, the likelihood of reaching consensus drops drastically. We need to add methods of protection to the discussion of whether not protections should be granted in order to have the best chance of reaching consensus.
Greg
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Heather Forrest *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:42 AM *To:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Dear WT5 colleagues,
Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: "
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
· *Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
· *In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
· *And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!"*
This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop.
Kind regards,
Heather Forrest
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this.
Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)."
But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that.
If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust.
Marita
On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear Joe,
thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state:
*“……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around*
* the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….”*
Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view:
· We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement
· In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely:
o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”)
o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME)
o Capital cities
· All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules.
· The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up).
There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations):
· There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms!
· In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility!
· So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them?
· Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use!
· Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city?
· The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included).
· As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise!
· The compromise needs to:
o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains!
o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants!
· I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it:
o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on).
o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important!
o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city).
o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying!
· The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”!
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
· *Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
· *In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
· *And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!*
The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise.
A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable?
Anyone in?
Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Joe Alagna *Sent:* Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
*MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us <MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us>*
They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
*MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov <MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov>* (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So…
3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. *I would agree with that general principal* since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world.
6. Shouldn’t we *not* assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear Greg and all Maybe we may slowly creating some common ground… Yesterday in the cross-community discussion there were ideas (some I proposed myself) such as (1) setting a deadline for reacting to a letter of non-objection request; (2) establishing that application may go forward if there is no reaction by the relevant pubic authority within that set deadline; (3) helping the applicant in determining whether the intended string is a city name or not; this could be done by an advisory body bound to confidentiality; (4) creating greater predictability by deferring to local laws and policies defining what a “city name” is in each jurisdiction… something that in the age of big data should be rather simple… (5) helping the applicant in identifying the relevant public authorities, and in establishing contact with them; (6) establishing mediation or other dispute-resolution procedures when the applicant disagrees with the position taken by the relevant authority… Etc. These are all means to address some of the issues alleged on the functioning of the “non-objection”-letter framework, and to raise predictability and certainty for all parties, without breaking this model that in general (with some limited exceptions) worked well according to the reported data and facts. Hope this may be helpful Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 11:32 An: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Maybe somebody “neutral” could summarize the suggested measures for the treatment of (non-capital) cities? Right now an applicant (for a non-capital city) requires Government support only if there is geo-use intent! • Do we keep it that way, • do we protect important (e.g. sizeable) cities a bit more, • or do we skip the protections completely? Seems these are the 3 choices. In MY view! I would say there are more choices, or at least more variations, based on the type of mechanism used. There are mechanisms that come before the application is filed (e.g., the letter of consent/non-objection), mechanisms that come after the application is filed but during the application process (e.g., objections, and also letters of c/n-o if it's determined you must have one), and mechanisms that come after the TLD is delegated (Compliance issues, Dispute Resolution Procedures). In some of these mechanisms, the "protectable right" is presumed (letter of consent/non-objection) and in others the "protectable right" must be proven (basically, all of the other mechanisms). How these variables could apply to protection of a category of geographic terms is critical. "Protection" could be acceptable with one set of variables and unacceptable with another set of variables. For example, the right to make an objection may be an acceptable protection where a letter of c/n-j is not. If we frame this only as a choice between letters of consent/non-objection or no "protection" at all, the likelihood of reaching consensus drops drastically. We need to add methods of protection to the discussion of whether not protections should be granted in order to have the best chance of reaching consensus. Greg From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:42 AM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Dear WT5 colleagues, Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: " So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!" This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop. Kind regards, Heather Forrest On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this. Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)." But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that. If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust. Marita On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….” Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: • We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement • In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”) o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities • All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. • The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): • There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms! • In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! • So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? • Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! • Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? • The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). • As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! • The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! • I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! • The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us<mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov<mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Hi Jorge. I just have a thought on #4. It would be nice if deferring to local laws was agreed upon, but would that be considered "fair" if one locality defined city as something that could be rather small but with a unique feature and another locality defined city as something that had to be very large, i.e. certain number of people or certain area? I tossed some of the wikipedia site you sent around the other day in Italian re: definition of cities (my Italian is also non-existant) and here is part of what it says. "Of the title of city, in Italy, you can boast those municipalities that have been awarded with the decree of the King (until 1946) or the provisional head of the state (until 1948) or the president of the Republic, by virtue of their historical importance , artistic, civic or demographic. Many other cities are given the title by virtue of legislative acts of pre-unification states, or they do so for ancient and uninterrupted custom ....." (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titolo_di_citt%C3%A0_in_Italia) I don't think that sort of think applies anywhere in North America. In Canada, it is the provinces that define cities, not the federal state, and I am sure artistic elements aren't part of it. #4 in the list below, which I am addressing, refers to defining a "city name". Is that considered to be an operation different from defining a "city." Can anyone elaborate? Marita On 6/26/2018 12:45 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Greg and all
Maybe we may slowly creating some common ground…
Yesterday in the cross-community discussion there were ideas (some I proposed myself) such as
(1) setting a deadline for reacting to a letter of non-objection request;
(2) establishing that application may go forward if there is no reaction by the relevant pubic authority within that set deadline;
(3) helping the applicant in determining whether the intended string is a city name or not; this could be done by an advisory body bound to confidentiality;
(4) creating greater predictability by deferring to local laws and policies defining what a “city name” is in each jurisdiction… something that in the age of big data should be rather simple…
(5) helping the applicant in identifying the relevant public authorities, and in establishing contact with them;
(6) establishing mediation or other dispute-resolution procedures when the applicant disagrees with the position taken by the relevant authority…
Etc.
These are all means to address some of the issues alleged on the functioning of the “non-objection”-letter framework, and to raise predictability and certainty for all parties, without breaking this model that in general (with some limited exceptions) worked well according to the reported data and facts.
Hope this may be helpful
Best
Jorge
*Von:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Greg Shatan *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 11:32 *An:* alexander@schubert.berlin *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Maybe somebody “neutral” could summarize the suggested measures for the *treatment of (non-capital) cities*? Right now an applicant (for a non-capital city) requires Government support only if there is geo-use intent!
·Do we keep it that way,
·do we protect important (e.g. sizeable) cities a bit more,
·or do we skip the protections completely?
Seems these are the 3 choices. In MY view!
I would say there are more choices, or at least more variations, based on the type of mechanism used. There are mechanisms that come before the application is filed (e.g., the letter of consent/non-objection), mechanisms that come after the application is filed but during the application process (e.g., objections, and also letters of c/n-o if it's determined you must have one), and mechanisms that come after the TLD is delegated (Compliance issues, Dispute Resolution Procedures).
In some of these mechanisms, the "protectable right" is presumed (letter of consent/non-objection) and in others the "protectable right" must be proven (basically, all of the other mechanisms). How these variables could apply to protection of a category of geographic terms is critical. "Protection" could be acceptable with one set of variables and unacceptable with another set of variables. For example, the right to make an objection may be an acceptable protection where a letter of c/n-j is not.
If we frame this only as a choice between letters of consent/non-objection or no "protection" at all, the likelihood of reaching consensus drops drastically. We need to add methods of protection to the discussion of whether not protections should be granted in order to have the best chance of reaching consensus.
Greg
*From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Heather Forrest *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:42 AM *To:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
*Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Dear WT5 colleagues,
Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: "
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
·*Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
·*In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
·*And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!"*
This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop.
Kind regards,
Heather Forrest
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote:
Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this.
Not totally happy with "To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)."
But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that.
If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust.
Marita
On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear Joe,
thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state:
*/“……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around/*
*/ the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….”/*
Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view:
·We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement
·In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely:
oUnesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”)
oISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME)
oCapital cities
·All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules.
·The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up).
There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations):
·There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms!
·In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility!
·So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them?
·Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use!
·Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city?
·The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included).
·As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise!
·The compromise needs to:
oProtect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains!
oBut to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants!
·I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it:
oIn order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on).
oSo if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important!
oTo reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city).
oSuch cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying!
·The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”!
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
·*Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
·*In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
·*And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!*
The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise.
A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable?
Anyone in?
Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Joe Alagna *Sent:* Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1.Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2.There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
*_MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us <mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us>_** * They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
*_MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov <mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov>_*(or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So…
3.Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a.Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b.Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c.Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4.Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5.There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. /I would agree with that general principal/ since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world.
6.Shouldn’t we _not_ assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a.A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b.A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c.Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d.There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear Marita Thanks very much for your feedback. I feel that subsidiarity means that you accept and are respectful of different solutions according to national laws and policies – setting an artificial one size fits all definition of “city” in ICANN is rather risky, difficult, and not respectful of different approaches at the local level. Perhaps this is a very Swiss thought, but one that works when different cultures, traditions and policies are at stake… Btw: I was not intending to make a distinction between city and city name, beyond the intrinsic difference that in national policies and laws you will normally find a definition of “city” in the abstract (e.g. in Switzerland this is linked to size and other statistical elements) and “city name” is the geoname as such, i.e. the question whether a string xyz matches a name of an entity defined as a “city” according to the relevant national law or policy. Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Marita Moll Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 13:35 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi Jorge. I just have a thought on #4. It would be nice if deferring to local laws was agreed upon, but would that be considered "fair" if one locality defined city as something that could be rather small but with a unique feature and another locality defined city as something that had to be very large, i.e. certain number of people or certain area? I tossed some of the wikipedia site you sent around the other day in Italian re: definition of cities (my Italian is also non-existant) and here is part of what it says. "Of the title of city, in Italy, you can boast those municipalities that have been awarded with the decree of the King (until 1946) or the provisional head of the state (until 1948) or the president of the Republic, by virtue of their historical importance , artistic, civic or demographic. Many other cities are given the title by virtue of legislative acts of pre-unification states, or they do so for ancient and uninterrupted custom ....." (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titolo_di_citt%C3%A0_in_Italia) I don't think that sort of think applies anywhere in North America. In Canada, it is the provinces that define cities, not the federal state, and I am sure artistic elements aren't part of it. #4 in the list below, which I am addressing, refers to defining a "city name". Is that considered to be an operation different from defining a "city." Can anyone elaborate? Marita On 6/26/2018 12:45 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Greg and all Maybe we may slowly creating some common ground… Yesterday in the cross-community discussion there were ideas (some I proposed myself) such as (1) setting a deadline for reacting to a letter of non-objection request; (2) establishing that application may go forward if there is no reaction by the relevant pubic authority within that set deadline; (3) helping the applicant in determining whether the intended string is a city name or not; this could be done by an advisory body bound to confidentiality; (4) creating greater predictability by deferring to local laws and policies defining what a “city name” is in each jurisdiction… something that in the age of big data should be rather simple… (5) helping the applicant in identifying the relevant public authorities, and in establishing contact with them; (6) establishing mediation or other dispute-resolution procedures when the applicant disagrees with the position taken by the relevant authority… Etc. These are all means to address some of the issues alleged on the functioning of the “non-objection”-letter framework, and to raise predictability and certainty for all parties, without breaking this model that in general (with some limited exceptions) worked well according to the reported data and facts. Hope this may be helpful Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 11:32 An: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Maybe somebody “neutral” could summarize the suggested measures for the treatment of (non-capital) cities? Right now an applicant (for a non-capital city) requires Government support only if there is geo-use intent! • Do we keep it that way, • do we protect important (e.g. sizeable) cities a bit more, • or do we skip the protections completely? Seems these are the 3 choices. In MY view! I would say there are more choices, or at least more variations, based on the type of mechanism used. There are mechanisms that come before the application is filed (e.g., the letter of consent/non-objection), mechanisms that come after the application is filed but during the application process (e.g., objections, and also letters of c/n-o if it's determined you must have one), and mechanisms that come after the TLD is delegated (Compliance issues, Dispute Resolution Procedures). In some of these mechanisms, the "protectable right" is presumed (letter of consent/non-objection) and in others the "protectable right" must be proven (basically, all of the other mechanisms). How these variables could apply to protection of a category of geographic terms is critical. "Protection" could be acceptable with one set of variables and unacceptable with another set of variables. For example, the right to make an objection may be an acceptable protection where a letter of c/n-j is not. If we frame this only as a choice between letters of consent/non-objection or no "protection" at all, the likelihood of reaching consensus drops drastically. We need to add methods of protection to the discussion of whether not protections should be granted in order to have the best chance of reaching consensus. Greg From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:42 AM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Dear WT5 colleagues, Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: " So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!" This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop. Kind regards, Heather Forrest On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this. Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)." But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that. If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust. Marita On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….” Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: • We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement • In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”) o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities • All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. • The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): • There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms! • In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! • So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? • Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! • Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? • The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). • As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! • The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! • I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! • The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us<mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov<mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ 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
What is the value in the word "city"? Why does it matter whether a locale is called a "city" or some other thing -- especially if the definitions vary so broadly that using the term as a single classification is meaningless? This shows that deciding that "cities" have "rights" is certainly not based on any standard. This could become an exercise in developing meaninglessness out of meanings. That is no way to build a specification. Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:52 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Marita
Thanks very much for your feedback. I feel that subsidiarity means that you accept and are respectful of different solutions according to national laws and policies – setting an artificial one size fits all definition of “city” in ICANN is rather risky, difficult, and not respectful of different approaches at the local level. Perhaps this is a very Swiss thought, but one that works when different cultures, traditions and policies are at stake…
Btw: I was not intending to make a distinction between city and city name, beyond the intrinsic difference that in national policies and laws you will normally find a definition of “city” in the abstract (e.g. in Switzerland this is linked to size and other statistical elements) and “city name” is the geoname as such, i.e. the question whether a string xyz matches a name of an entity defined as a “city” according to the relevant national law or policy.
Best
Jorge
*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Marita Moll *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 13:35 *An:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
*Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi Jorge. I just have a thought on #4.
It would be nice if deferring to local laws was agreed upon, but would that be considered "fair" if one locality defined city as something that could be rather small but with a unique feature and another locality defined city as something that had to be very large, i.e. certain number of people or certain area? I tossed some of the wikipedia site you sent around the other day in Italian re: definition of cities (my Italian is also non-existant) and here is part of what it says.
"Of the title of city, in Italy, you can boast those municipalities that have been awarded with the decree of the King (until 1946) or the provisional head of the state (until 1948) or the president of the Republic, by virtue of their historical importance , artistic, civic or demographic. Many other cities are given the title by virtue of legislative acts of pre-unification states, or they do so for ancient and uninterrupted custom ....." (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titolo_di_citt%C3%A0_in_ Italia)
I don't think that sort of think applies anywhere in North America. In Canada, it is the provinces that define cities, not the federal state, and I am sure artistic elements aren't part of it.
#4 in the list below, which I am addressing, refers to defining a "city name". Is that considered to be an operation different from defining a "city." Can anyone elaborate?
Marita
On 6/26/2018 12:45 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Greg and all
Maybe we may slowly creating some common ground…
Yesterday in the cross-community discussion there were ideas (some I proposed myself) such as
(1) setting a deadline for reacting to a letter of non-objection request;
(2) establishing that application may go forward if there is no reaction by the relevant pubic authority within that set deadline;
(3) helping the applicant in determining whether the intended string is a city name or not; this could be done by an advisory body bound to confidentiality;
(4) creating greater predictability by deferring to local laws and policies defining what a “city name” is in each jurisdiction… something that in the age of big data should be rather simple…
(5) helping the applicant in identifying the relevant public authorities, and in establishing contact with them;
(6) establishing mediation or other dispute-resolution procedures when the applicant disagrees with the position taken by the relevant authority…
Etc.
These are all means to address some of the issues alleged on the functioning of the “non-objection”-letter framework, and to raise predictability and certainty for all parties, without breaking this model that in general (with some limited exceptions) worked well according to the reported data and facts.
Hope this may be helpful
Best
Jorge
*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Greg Shatan *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 11:32 *An:* alexander@schubert.berlin *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Maybe somebody “neutral” could summarize the suggested measures for the *treatment of (non-capital) cities*? Right now an applicant (for a non-capital city) requires Government support only if there is geo-use intent!
· Do we keep it that way,
· do we protect important (e.g. sizeable) cities a bit more,
· or do we skip the protections completely?
Seems these are the 3 choices. In MY view!
I would say there are more choices, or at least more variations, based on the type of mechanism used. There are mechanisms that come before the application is filed (e.g., the letter of consent/non-objection), mechanisms that come after the application is filed but during the application process (e.g., objections, and also letters of c/n-o if it's determined you must have one), and mechanisms that come after the TLD is delegated (Compliance issues, Dispute Resolution Procedures).
In some of these mechanisms, the "protectable right" is presumed (letter of consent/non-objection) and in others the "protectable right" must be proven (basically, all of the other mechanisms). How these variables could apply to protection of a category of geographic terms is critical. "Protection" could be acceptable with one set of variables and unacceptable with another set of variables. For example, the right to make an objection may be an acceptable protection where a letter of c/n-j is not.
If we frame this only as a choice between letters of consent/non-objection or no "protection" at all, the likelihood of reaching consensus drops drastically. We need to add methods of protection to the discussion of whether not protections should be granted in order to have the best chance of reaching consensus.
Greg
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Heather Forrest *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:42 AM *To:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Dear WT5 colleagues,
Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: "
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
· *Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
· *In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
· *And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!"*
This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop.
Kind regards,
Heather Forrest
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this.
Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)."
But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that.
If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust.
Marita
On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear Joe,
thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state:
*“……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around*
* the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….”*
Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view:
· We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement
· In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely:
o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”)
o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME)
o Capital cities
· All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules.
· The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up).
There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations):
· There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms!
· In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility!
· So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them?
· Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use!
· Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city?
· The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included).
· As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise!
· The compromise needs to:
o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains!
o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants!
· I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it:
o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on).
o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important!
o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city).
o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying!
· The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”!
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
· *Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
· *In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
· *And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!*
The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise.
A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable?
Anyone in?
Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Joe Alagna *Sent:* Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
*MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us <MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us>*
They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
*MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov <MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov>* (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So…
3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. *I would agree with that general principal* since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world.
6. Shouldn’t we *not* assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
I guess I don’t understand your comment or I expressed myself very poorly: the word „city“ as such is not a geoname (as far as I know)… With city I refer to what is defined as a city – the “city name” refers to the actual names of the entities considered as cities… Hope this is clearer… Best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:42 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments What is the value in the word "city"? Why does it matter whether a locale is called a "city" or some other thing -- especially if the definitions vary so broadly that using the term as a single classification is meaningless? This shows that deciding that "cities" have "rights" is certainly not based on any standard. This could become an exercise in developing meaninglessness out of meanings. That is no way to build a specification. Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:52 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Marita Thanks very much for your feedback. I feel that subsidiarity means that you accept and are respectful of different solutions according to national laws and policies – setting an artificial one size fits all definition of “city” in ICANN is rather risky, difficult, and not respectful of different approaches at the local level. Perhaps this is a very Swiss thought, but one that works when different cultures, traditions and policies are at stake… Btw: I was not intending to make a distinction between city and city name, beyond the intrinsic difference that in national policies and laws you will normally find a definition of “city” in the abstract (e.g. in Switzerland this is linked to size and other statistical elements) and “city name” is the geoname as such, i.e. the question whether a string xyz matches a name of an entity defined as a “city” according to the relevant national law or policy. Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Marita Moll Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 13:35 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi Jorge. I just have a thought on #4. It would be nice if deferring to local laws was agreed upon, but would that be considered "fair" if one locality defined city as something that could be rather small but with a unique feature and another locality defined city as something that had to be very large, i.e. certain number of people or certain area? I tossed some of the wikipedia site you sent around the other day in Italian re: definition of cities (my Italian is also non-existant) and here is part of what it says. "Of the title of city, in Italy, you can boast those municipalities that have been awarded with the decree of the King (until 1946) or the provisional head of the state (until 1948) or the president of the Republic, by virtue of their historical importance , artistic, civic or demographic. Many other cities are given the title by virtue of legislative acts of pre-unification states, or they do so for ancient and uninterrupted custom ....." (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titolo_di_citt%C3%A0_in_Italia) I don't think that sort of think applies anywhere in North America. In Canada, it is the provinces that define cities, not the federal state, and I am sure artistic elements aren't part of it. #4 in the list below, which I am addressing, refers to defining a "city name". Is that considered to be an operation different from defining a "city." Can anyone elaborate? Marita On 6/26/2018 12:45 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Greg and all Maybe we may slowly creating some common ground… Yesterday in the cross-community discussion there were ideas (some I proposed myself) such as (1) setting a deadline for reacting to a letter of non-objection request; (2) establishing that application may go forward if there is no reaction by the relevant pubic authority within that set deadline; (3) helping the applicant in determining whether the intended string is a city name or not; this could be done by an advisory body bound to confidentiality; (4) creating greater predictability by deferring to local laws and policies defining what a “city name” is in each jurisdiction… something that in the age of big data should be rather simple… (5) helping the applicant in identifying the relevant public authorities, and in establishing contact with them; (6) establishing mediation or other dispute-resolution procedures when the applicant disagrees with the position taken by the relevant authority… Etc. These are all means to address some of the issues alleged on the functioning of the “non-objection”-letter framework, and to raise predictability and certainty for all parties, without breaking this model that in general (with some limited exceptions) worked well according to the reported data and facts. Hope this may be helpful Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 11:32 An: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Maybe somebody “neutral” could summarize the suggested measures for the treatment of (non-capital) cities? Right now an applicant (for a non-capital city) requires Government support only if there is geo-use intent! • Do we keep it that way, • do we protect important (e.g. sizeable) cities a bit more, • or do we skip the protections completely? Seems these are the 3 choices. In MY view! I would say there are more choices, or at least more variations, based on the type of mechanism used. There are mechanisms that come before the application is filed (e.g., the letter of consent/non-objection), mechanisms that come after the application is filed but during the application process (e.g., objections, and also letters of c/n-o if it's determined you must have one), and mechanisms that come after the TLD is delegated (Compliance issues, Dispute Resolution Procedures). In some of these mechanisms, the "protectable right" is presumed (letter of consent/non-objection) and in others the "protectable right" must be proven (basically, all of the other mechanisms). How these variables could apply to protection of a category of geographic terms is critical. "Protection" could be acceptable with one set of variables and unacceptable with another set of variables. For example, the right to make an objection may be an acceptable protection where a letter of c/n-j is not. If we frame this only as a choice between letters of consent/non-objection or no "protection" at all, the likelihood of reaching consensus drops drastically. We need to add methods of protection to the discussion of whether not protections should be granted in order to have the best chance of reaching consensus. Greg From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:42 AM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Dear WT5 colleagues, Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: " So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!" This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop. Kind regards, Heather Forrest On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this. Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)." But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that. If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust. Marita On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….” Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: • We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement • In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”) o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities • All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. • The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): • There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms! • In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! • So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? • Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! • Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? • The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). • As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! • The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! • I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! • The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us<mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov<mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ 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
Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. I am asking why determining whether something is a "city" is useful in this context, when its meaning is so variable as to be virtually meaningless as a general term? It just shows that there is no consistent basis for this demand for city "protections", if there's any basis at all. Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:46 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
I guess I don’t understand your comment or I expressed myself very poorly: the word „city“ as such is not a geoname (as far as I know)…
With city I refer to what is defined as a city – the “city name” refers to the actual names of the entities considered as cities…
Hope this is clearer…
Best
Jorge
*Von:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:42 *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Cc:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
*Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
What is the value in the word "city"? Why does it matter whether a locale is called a "city" or some other thing -- especially if the definitions vary so broadly that using the term as a single classification is meaningless? This shows that deciding that "cities" have "rights" is certainly not based on any standard. This could become an exercise in developing meaninglessness out of meanings. That is no way to build a specification.
Greg
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:52 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Marita
Thanks very much for your feedback. I feel that subsidiarity means that you accept and are respectful of different solutions according to national laws and policies – setting an artificial one size fits all definition of “city” in ICANN is rather risky, difficult, and not respectful of different approaches at the local level. Perhaps this is a very Swiss thought, but one that works when different cultures, traditions and policies are at stake…
Btw: I was not intending to make a distinction between city and city name, beyond the intrinsic difference that in national policies and laws you will normally find a definition of “city” in the abstract (e.g. in Switzerland this is linked to size and other statistical elements) and “city name” is the geoname as such, i.e. the question whether a string xyz matches a name of an entity defined as a “city” according to the relevant national law or policy.
Best
Jorge
*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Marita Moll *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 13:35 *An:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
*Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi Jorge. I just have a thought on #4.
It would be nice if deferring to local laws was agreed upon, but would that be considered "fair" if one locality defined city as something that could be rather small but with a unique feature and another locality defined city as something that had to be very large, i.e. certain number of people or certain area? I tossed some of the wikipedia site you sent around the other day in Italian re: definition of cities (my Italian is also non-existant) and here is part of what it says.
"Of the title of city, in Italy, you can boast those municipalities that have been awarded with the decree of the King (until 1946) or the provisional head of the state (until 1948) or the president of the Republic, by virtue of their historical importance , artistic, civic or demographic. Many other cities are given the title by virtue of legislative acts of pre-unification states, or they do so for ancient and uninterrupted custom ....." (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titolo_di_citt%C3%A0_in_ Italia)
I don't think that sort of think applies anywhere in North America. In Canada, it is the provinces that define cities, not the federal state, and I am sure artistic elements aren't part of it.
#4 in the list below, which I am addressing, refers to defining a "city name". Is that considered to be an operation different from defining a "city." Can anyone elaborate?
Marita
On 6/26/2018 12:45 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Greg and all
Maybe we may slowly creating some common ground…
Yesterday in the cross-community discussion there were ideas (some I proposed myself) such as
(1) setting a deadline for reacting to a letter of non-objection request;
(2) establishing that application may go forward if there is no reaction by the relevant pubic authority within that set deadline;
(3) helping the applicant in determining whether the intended string is a city name or not; this could be done by an advisory body bound to confidentiality;
(4) creating greater predictability by deferring to local laws and policies defining what a “city name” is in each jurisdiction… something that in the age of big data should be rather simple…
(5) helping the applicant in identifying the relevant public authorities, and in establishing contact with them;
(6) establishing mediation or other dispute-resolution procedures when the applicant disagrees with the position taken by the relevant authority…
Etc.
These are all means to address some of the issues alleged on the functioning of the “non-objection”-letter framework, and to raise predictability and certainty for all parties, without breaking this model that in general (with some limited exceptions) worked well according to the reported data and facts.
Hope this may be helpful
Best
Jorge
*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Greg Shatan *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 11:32 *An:* alexander@schubert.berlin *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Maybe somebody “neutral” could summarize the suggested measures for the *treatment of (non-capital) cities*? Right now an applicant (for a non-capital city) requires Government support only if there is geo-use intent!
· Do we keep it that way,
· do we protect important (e.g. sizeable) cities a bit more,
· or do we skip the protections completely?
Seems these are the 3 choices. In MY view!
I would say there are more choices, or at least more variations, based on the type of mechanism used. There are mechanisms that come before the application is filed (e.g., the letter of consent/non-objection), mechanisms that come after the application is filed but during the application process (e.g., objections, and also letters of c/n-o if it's determined you must have one), and mechanisms that come after the TLD is delegated (Compliance issues, Dispute Resolution Procedures).
In some of these mechanisms, the "protectable right" is presumed (letter of consent/non-objection) and in others the "protectable right" must be proven (basically, all of the other mechanisms). How these variables could apply to protection of a category of geographic terms is critical. "Protection" could be acceptable with one set of variables and unacceptable with another set of variables. For example, the right to make an objection may be an acceptable protection where a letter of c/n-j is not.
If we frame this only as a choice between letters of consent/non-objection or no "protection" at all, the likelihood of reaching consensus drops drastically. We need to add methods of protection to the discussion of whether not protections should be granted in order to have the best chance of reaching consensus.
Greg
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Heather Forrest *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:42 AM *To:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Dear WT5 colleagues,
Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: "
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
· *Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
· *In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
· *And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!"*
This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop.
Kind regards,
Heather Forrest
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this.
Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)."
But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that.
If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust.
Marita
On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear Joe,
thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state:
*“……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around*
* the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….”*
Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view:
· We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement
· In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely:
o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”)
o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME)
o Capital cities
· All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules.
· The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up).
There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations):
· There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms!
· In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility!
· So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them?
· Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use!
· Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city?
· The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included).
· As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise!
· The compromise needs to:
o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains!
o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants!
· I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it:
o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on).
o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important!
o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city).
o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying!
· The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”!
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
· *Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
· *In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
· *And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!*
The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise.
A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable?
Anyone in?
Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Joe Alagna *Sent:* Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
*MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us <MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us>*
They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
*MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov <MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov>* (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So…
3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. *I would agree with that general principal* since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world.
6. Shouldn’t we *not* assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Well, cities are there. Cities have names. The public authorities and the populations of such cities care about their names, and the former have responsibilities, interests and, in some jurisdictions at least, rights on those identifiers. But what is considered as a city is different from country to country. So deferring to local laws and policies on what is considered in each case as a city is respectful of the sensitivities and increases predictability and certainty for all. I feel that some deference to subsidiarity is quite a healthy exercise – in the end the fact that an entity is considered a city in a given country reflects that such identity as a city is relevant in that country. e.g. in Switzerland we have specific criteria on what we consider a „city“ – we would rather not want to get that definition imposed on us… best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:52 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. I am asking why determining whether something is a "city" is useful in this context, when its meaning is so variable as to be virtually meaningless as a general term? It just shows that there is no consistent basis for this demand for city "protections", if there's any basis at all. Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:46 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: I guess I don’t understand your comment or I expressed myself very poorly: the word „city“ as such is not a geoname (as far as I know)… With city I refer to what is defined as a city – the “city name” refers to the actual names of the entities considered as cities… Hope this is clearer… Best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:42 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments What is the value in the word "city"? Why does it matter whether a locale is called a "city" or some other thing -- especially if the definitions vary so broadly that using the term as a single classification is meaningless? This shows that deciding that "cities" have "rights" is certainly not based on any standard. This could become an exercise in developing meaninglessness out of meanings. That is no way to build a specification. Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:52 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Marita Thanks very much for your feedback. I feel that subsidiarity means that you accept and are respectful of different solutions according to national laws and policies – setting an artificial one size fits all definition of “city” in ICANN is rather risky, difficult, and not respectful of different approaches at the local level. Perhaps this is a very Swiss thought, but one that works when different cultures, traditions and policies are at stake… Btw: I was not intending to make a distinction between city and city name, beyond the intrinsic difference that in national policies and laws you will normally find a definition of “city” in the abstract (e.g. in Switzerland this is linked to size and other statistical elements) and “city name” is the geoname as such, i.e. the question whether a string xyz matches a name of an entity defined as a “city” according to the relevant national law or policy. Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Marita Moll Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 13:35 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi Jorge. I just have a thought on #4. It would be nice if deferring to local laws was agreed upon, but would that be considered "fair" if one locality defined city as something that could be rather small but with a unique feature and another locality defined city as something that had to be very large, i.e. certain number of people or certain area? I tossed some of the wikipedia site you sent around the other day in Italian re: definition of cities (my Italian is also non-existant) and here is part of what it says. "Of the title of city, in Italy, you can boast those municipalities that have been awarded with the decree of the King (until 1946) or the provisional head of the state (until 1948) or the president of the Republic, by virtue of their historical importance , artistic, civic or demographic. Many other cities are given the title by virtue of legislative acts of pre-unification states, or they do so for ancient and uninterrupted custom ....." (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titolo_di_citt%C3%A0_in_Italia) I don't think that sort of think applies anywhere in North America. In Canada, it is the provinces that define cities, not the federal state, and I am sure artistic elements aren't part of it. #4 in the list below, which I am addressing, refers to defining a "city name". Is that considered to be an operation different from defining a "city." Can anyone elaborate? Marita On 6/26/2018 12:45 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Greg and all Maybe we may slowly creating some common ground… Yesterday in the cross-community discussion there were ideas (some I proposed myself) such as (1) setting a deadline for reacting to a letter of non-objection request; (2) establishing that application may go forward if there is no reaction by the relevant pubic authority within that set deadline; (3) helping the applicant in determining whether the intended string is a city name or not; this could be done by an advisory body bound to confidentiality; (4) creating greater predictability by deferring to local laws and policies defining what a “city name” is in each jurisdiction… something that in the age of big data should be rather simple… (5) helping the applicant in identifying the relevant public authorities, and in establishing contact with them; (6) establishing mediation or other dispute-resolution procedures when the applicant disagrees with the position taken by the relevant authority… Etc. These are all means to address some of the issues alleged on the functioning of the “non-objection”-letter framework, and to raise predictability and certainty for all parties, without breaking this model that in general (with some limited exceptions) worked well according to the reported data and facts. Hope this may be helpful Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 11:32 An: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Maybe somebody “neutral” could summarize the suggested measures for the treatment of (non-capital) cities? Right now an applicant (for a non-capital city) requires Government support only if there is geo-use intent! • Do we keep it that way, • do we protect important (e.g. sizeable) cities a bit more, • or do we skip the protections completely? Seems these are the 3 choices. In MY view! I would say there are more choices, or at least more variations, based on the type of mechanism used. There are mechanisms that come before the application is filed (e.g., the letter of consent/non-objection), mechanisms that come after the application is filed but during the application process (e.g., objections, and also letters of c/n-o if it's determined you must have one), and mechanisms that come after the TLD is delegated (Compliance issues, Dispute Resolution Procedures). In some of these mechanisms, the "protectable right" is presumed (letter of consent/non-objection) and in others the "protectable right" must be proven (basically, all of the other mechanisms). How these variables could apply to protection of a category of geographic terms is critical. "Protection" could be acceptable with one set of variables and unacceptable with another set of variables. For example, the right to make an objection may be an acceptable protection where a letter of c/n-j is not. If we frame this only as a choice between letters of consent/non-objection or no "protection" at all, the likelihood of reaching consensus drops drastically. We need to add methods of protection to the discussion of whether not protections should be granted in order to have the best chance of reaching consensus. Greg From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:42 AM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Dear WT5 colleagues, Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: " So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!" This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop. Kind regards, Heather Forrest On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this. Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)." But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that. If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust. Marita On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….” Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: • We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement • In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”) o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities • All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. • The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): • There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms! • In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! • So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? • Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! • Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? • The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). • As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! • The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! • I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! • The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us<mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov<mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ 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
Maybe I'll put the question more simply: What is a city? Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:00 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Well, cities are there. Cities have names. The public authorities and the populations of such cities care about their names, and the former have responsibilities, interests and, in some jurisdictions at least, rights on those identifiers.
But what is considered as a city is different from country to country.
So deferring to local laws and policies on what is considered in each case as a city is respectful of the sensitivities and increases predictability and certainty for all.
I feel that some deference to subsidiarity is quite a healthy exercise – in the end the fact that an entity is considered a city in a given country reflects that such identity as a city is relevant in that country.
e.g. in Switzerland we have specific criteria on what we consider a „city“ – we would rather not want to get that definition imposed on us…
best
Jorge
*Von:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:52 *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>
*Cc:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. I am asking why determining whether something is a "city" is useful in this context, when its meaning is so variable as to be virtually meaningless as a general term? It just shows that there is no consistent basis for this demand for city "protections", if there's any basis at all.
Greg
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:46 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
I guess I don’t understand your comment or I expressed myself very poorly: the word „city“ as such is not a geoname (as far as I know)…
With city I refer to what is defined as a city – the “city name” refers to the actual names of the entities considered as cities…
Hope this is clearer…
Best
Jorge
*Von:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:42 *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Cc:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
*Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
What is the value in the word "city"? Why does it matter whether a locale is called a "city" or some other thing -- especially if the definitions vary so broadly that using the term as a single classification is meaningless? This shows that deciding that "cities" have "rights" is certainly not based on any standard. This could become an exercise in developing meaninglessness out of meanings. That is no way to build a specification.
Greg
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:52 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Marita
Thanks very much for your feedback. I feel that subsidiarity means that you accept and are respectful of different solutions according to national laws and policies – setting an artificial one size fits all definition of “city” in ICANN is rather risky, difficult, and not respectful of different approaches at the local level. Perhaps this is a very Swiss thought, but one that works when different cultures, traditions and policies are at stake…
Btw: I was not intending to make a distinction between city and city name, beyond the intrinsic difference that in national policies and laws you will normally find a definition of “city” in the abstract (e.g. in Switzerland this is linked to size and other statistical elements) and “city name” is the geoname as such, i.e. the question whether a string xyz matches a name of an entity defined as a “city” according to the relevant national law or policy.
Best
Jorge
*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Marita Moll *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 13:35 *An:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
*Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi Jorge. I just have a thought on #4.
It would be nice if deferring to local laws was agreed upon, but would that be considered "fair" if one locality defined city as something that could be rather small but with a unique feature and another locality defined city as something that had to be very large, i.e. certain number of people or certain area? I tossed some of the wikipedia site you sent around the other day in Italian re: definition of cities (my Italian is also non-existant) and here is part of what it says.
"Of the title of city, in Italy, you can boast those municipalities that have been awarded with the decree of the King (until 1946) or the provisional head of the state (until 1948) or the president of the Republic, by virtue of their historical importance , artistic, civic or demographic. Many other cities are given the title by virtue of legislative acts of pre-unification states, or they do so for ancient and uninterrupted custom ....." (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titolo_di_citt%C3%A0_in_ Italia)
I don't think that sort of think applies anywhere in North America. In Canada, it is the provinces that define cities, not the federal state, and I am sure artistic elements aren't part of it.
#4 in the list below, which I am addressing, refers to defining a "city name". Is that considered to be an operation different from defining a "city." Can anyone elaborate?
Marita
On 6/26/2018 12:45 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Greg and all
Maybe we may slowly creating some common ground…
Yesterday in the cross-community discussion there were ideas (some I proposed myself) such as
(1) setting a deadline for reacting to a letter of non-objection request;
(2) establishing that application may go forward if there is no reaction by the relevant pubic authority within that set deadline;
(3) helping the applicant in determining whether the intended string is a city name or not; this could be done by an advisory body bound to confidentiality;
(4) creating greater predictability by deferring to local laws and policies defining what a “city name” is in each jurisdiction… something that in the age of big data should be rather simple…
(5) helping the applicant in identifying the relevant public authorities, and in establishing contact with them;
(6) establishing mediation or other dispute-resolution procedures when the applicant disagrees with the position taken by the relevant authority…
Etc.
These are all means to address some of the issues alleged on the functioning of the “non-objection”-letter framework, and to raise predictability and certainty for all parties, without breaking this model that in general (with some limited exceptions) worked well according to the reported data and facts.
Hope this may be helpful
Best
Jorge
*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Greg Shatan *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 11:32 *An:* alexander@schubert.berlin *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Maybe somebody “neutral” could summarize the suggested measures for the *treatment of (non-capital) cities*? Right now an applicant (for a non-capital city) requires Government support only if there is geo-use intent!
· Do we keep it that way,
· do we protect important (e.g. sizeable) cities a bit more,
· or do we skip the protections completely?
Seems these are the 3 choices. In MY view!
I would say there are more choices, or at least more variations, based on the type of mechanism used. There are mechanisms that come before the application is filed (e.g., the letter of consent/non-objection), mechanisms that come after the application is filed but during the application process (e.g., objections, and also letters of c/n-o if it's determined you must have one), and mechanisms that come after the TLD is delegated (Compliance issues, Dispute Resolution Procedures).
In some of these mechanisms, the "protectable right" is presumed (letter of consent/non-objection) and in others the "protectable right" must be proven (basically, all of the other mechanisms). How these variables could apply to protection of a category of geographic terms is critical. "Protection" could be acceptable with one set of variables and unacceptable with another set of variables. For example, the right to make an objection may be an acceptable protection where a letter of c/n-j is not.
If we frame this only as a choice between letters of consent/non-objection or no "protection" at all, the likelihood of reaching consensus drops drastically. We need to add methods of protection to the discussion of whether not protections should be granted in order to have the best chance of reaching consensus.
Greg
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Heather Forrest *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:42 AM *To:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Dear WT5 colleagues,
Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: "
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
· *Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
· *In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
· *And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!"*
This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop.
Kind regards,
Heather Forrest
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this.
Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)."
But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that.
If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust.
Marita
On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear Joe,
thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state:
*“……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around*
* the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….”*
Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view:
· We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement
· In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely:
o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”)
o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME)
o Capital cities
· All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules.
· The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up).
There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations):
· There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms!
· In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility!
· So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them?
· Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use!
· Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city?
· The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included).
· As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise!
· The compromise needs to:
o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains!
o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants!
· I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it:
o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on).
o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important!
o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city).
o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying!
· The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”!
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
· *Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
· *In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
· *And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!*
The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise.
A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable?
Anyone in?
Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Joe Alagna *Sent:* Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
*MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us <MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us>*
They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
*MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov <MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov>* (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So…
3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. *I would agree with that general principal* since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world.
6. Shouldn’t we *not* assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
In general: e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City For Switzerland: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/kataloge-datenbanken/publik... Anyway, we can take this offline if you wish – it would be great to hear other people waging in on the specific ideas suggested with the goal of improving the current system… Best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 16:24 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Maybe I'll put the question more simply: What is a city? Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:00 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Well, cities are there. Cities have names. The public authorities and the populations of such cities care about their names, and the former have responsibilities, interests and, in some jurisdictions at least, rights on those identifiers. But what is considered as a city is different from country to country. So deferring to local laws and policies on what is considered in each case as a city is respectful of the sensitivities and increases predictability and certainty for all. I feel that some deference to subsidiarity is quite a healthy exercise – in the end the fact that an entity is considered a city in a given country reflects that such identity as a city is relevant in that country. e.g. in Switzerland we have specific criteria on what we consider a „city“ – we would rather not want to get that definition imposed on us… best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:52 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. I am asking why determining whether something is a "city" is useful in this context, when its meaning is so variable as to be virtually meaningless as a general term? It just shows that there is no consistent basis for this demand for city "protections", if there's any basis at all. Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:46 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: I guess I don’t understand your comment or I expressed myself very poorly: the word „city“ as such is not a geoname (as far as I know)… With city I refer to what is defined as a city – the “city name” refers to the actual names of the entities considered as cities… Hope this is clearer… Best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:42 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments What is the value in the word "city"? Why does it matter whether a locale is called a "city" or some other thing -- especially if the definitions vary so broadly that using the term as a single classification is meaningless? This shows that deciding that "cities" have "rights" is certainly not based on any standard. This could become an exercise in developing meaninglessness out of meanings. That is no way to build a specification. Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:52 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Marita Thanks very much for your feedback. I feel that subsidiarity means that you accept and are respectful of different solutions according to national laws and policies – setting an artificial one size fits all definition of “city” in ICANN is rather risky, difficult, and not respectful of different approaches at the local level. Perhaps this is a very Swiss thought, but one that works when different cultures, traditions and policies are at stake… Btw: I was not intending to make a distinction between city and city name, beyond the intrinsic difference that in national policies and laws you will normally find a definition of “city” in the abstract (e.g. in Switzerland this is linked to size and other statistical elements) and “city name” is the geoname as such, i.e. the question whether a string xyz matches a name of an entity defined as a “city” according to the relevant national law or policy. Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Marita Moll Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 13:35 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi Jorge. I just have a thought on #4. It would be nice if deferring to local laws was agreed upon, but would that be considered "fair" if one locality defined city as something that could be rather small but with a unique feature and another locality defined city as something that had to be very large, i.e. certain number of people or certain area? I tossed some of the wikipedia site you sent around the other day in Italian re: definition of cities (my Italian is also non-existant) and here is part of what it says. "Of the title of city, in Italy, you can boast those municipalities that have been awarded with the decree of the King (until 1946) or the provisional head of the state (until 1948) or the president of the Republic, by virtue of their historical importance , artistic, civic or demographic. Many other cities are given the title by virtue of legislative acts of pre-unification states, or they do so for ancient and uninterrupted custom ....." (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titolo_di_citt%C3%A0_in_Italia) I don't think that sort of think applies anywhere in North America. In Canada, it is the provinces that define cities, not the federal state, and I am sure artistic elements aren't part of it. #4 in the list below, which I am addressing, refers to defining a "city name". Is that considered to be an operation different from defining a "city." Can anyone elaborate? Marita On 6/26/2018 12:45 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Greg and all Maybe we may slowly creating some common ground… Yesterday in the cross-community discussion there were ideas (some I proposed myself) such as (1) setting a deadline for reacting to a letter of non-objection request; (2) establishing that application may go forward if there is no reaction by the relevant pubic authority within that set deadline; (3) helping the applicant in determining whether the intended string is a city name or not; this could be done by an advisory body bound to confidentiality; (4) creating greater predictability by deferring to local laws and policies defining what a “city name” is in each jurisdiction… something that in the age of big data should be rather simple… (5) helping the applicant in identifying the relevant public authorities, and in establishing contact with them; (6) establishing mediation or other dispute-resolution procedures when the applicant disagrees with the position taken by the relevant authority… Etc. These are all means to address some of the issues alleged on the functioning of the “non-objection”-letter framework, and to raise predictability and certainty for all parties, without breaking this model that in general (with some limited exceptions) worked well according to the reported data and facts. Hope this may be helpful Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 11:32 An: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Maybe somebody “neutral” could summarize the suggested measures for the treatment of (non-capital) cities? Right now an applicant (for a non-capital city) requires Government support only if there is geo-use intent! • Do we keep it that way, • do we protect important (e.g. sizeable) cities a bit more, • or do we skip the protections completely? Seems these are the 3 choices. In MY view! I would say there are more choices, or at least more variations, based on the type of mechanism used. There are mechanisms that come before the application is filed (e.g., the letter of consent/non-objection), mechanisms that come after the application is filed but during the application process (e.g., objections, and also letters of c/n-o if it's determined you must have one), and mechanisms that come after the TLD is delegated (Compliance issues, Dispute Resolution Procedures). In some of these mechanisms, the "protectable right" is presumed (letter of consent/non-objection) and in others the "protectable right" must be proven (basically, all of the other mechanisms). How these variables could apply to protection of a category of geographic terms is critical. "Protection" could be acceptable with one set of variables and unacceptable with another set of variables. For example, the right to make an objection may be an acceptable protection where a letter of c/n-j is not. If we frame this only as a choice between letters of consent/non-objection or no "protection" at all, the likelihood of reaching consensus drops drastically. We need to add methods of protection to the discussion of whether not protections should be granted in order to have the best chance of reaching consensus. Greg From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:42 AM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Dear WT5 colleagues, Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: " So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!" This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop. Kind regards, Heather Forrest On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this. Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)." But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that. If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust. Marita On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….” Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: • We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement • In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”) o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities • All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. • The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): • There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms! • In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! • So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? • Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! • Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? • The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). • As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! • The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! • I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! • The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us<mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov<mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ 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
Another quote from the same Wikipedia article: A city is distinguished from other human settlements by its relatively great size, but also by its functions and its special symbolic status<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_status>, which may be conferred by a central authority. Best, Yrjö ________________________________ From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 12:31 AM To: gregshatanipc@gmail.com Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments In general: e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Alexandria_Waterfront_%282347809660%29.jpg/1200px-Alexandria_Waterfront_%282347809660%29.jpg]<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City> City - Wikipedia<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City> en.wikipedia.org A city is a large human settlement. Cities generally have extensive systems for housing, transportation, sanitation, utilities, land use, and communication.Their density facilitates interaction between people, government organizations and businesses, sometimes benefiting different parties in the process. For Switzerland: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/kataloge-datenbanken/publik... Anyway, we can take this offline if you wish – it would be great to hear other people waging in on the specific ideas suggested with the goal of improving the current system… Best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 16:24 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Maybe I'll put the question more simply: What is a city? Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:00 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Well, cities are there. Cities have names. The public authorities and the populations of such cities care about their names, and the former have responsibilities, interests and, in some jurisdictions at least, rights on those identifiers. But what is considered as a city is different from country to country. So deferring to local laws and policies on what is considered in each case as a city is respectful of the sensitivities and increases predictability and certainty for all. I feel that some deference to subsidiarity is quite a healthy exercise – in the end the fact that an entity is considered a city in a given country reflects that such identity as a city is relevant in that country. e.g. in Switzerland we have specific criteria on what we consider a „city“ – we would rather not want to get that definition imposed on us… best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:52 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. I am asking why determining whether something is a "city" is useful in this context, when its meaning is so variable as to be virtually meaningless as a general term? It just shows that there is no consistent basis for this demand for city "protections", if there's any basis at all. Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:46 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: I guess I don’t understand your comment or I expressed myself very poorly: the word „city“ as such is not a geoname (as far as I know)… With city I refer to what is defined as a city – the “city name” refers to the actual names of the entities considered as cities… Hope this is clearer… Best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:42 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments What is the value in the word "city"? Why does it matter whether a locale is called a "city" or some other thing -- especially if the definitions vary so broadly that using the term as a single classification is meaningless? This shows that deciding that "cities" have "rights" is certainly not based on any standard. This could become an exercise in developing meaninglessness out of meanings. That is no way to build a specification. Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:52 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Marita Thanks very much for your feedback. I feel that subsidiarity means that you accept and are respectful of different solutions according to national laws and policies – setting an artificial one size fits all definition of “city” in ICANN is rather risky, difficult, and not respectful of different approaches at the local level. Perhaps this is a very Swiss thought, but one that works when different cultures, traditions and policies are at stake… Btw: I was not intending to make a distinction between city and city name, beyond the intrinsic difference that in national policies and laws you will normally find a definition of “city” in the abstract (e.g. in Switzerland this is linked to size and other statistical elements) and “city name” is the geoname as such, i.e. the question whether a string xyz matches a name of an entity defined as a “city” according to the relevant national law or policy. Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Marita Moll Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 13:35 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi Jorge. I just have a thought on #4. It would be nice if deferring to local laws was agreed upon, but would that be considered "fair" if one locality defined city as something that could be rather small but with a unique feature and another locality defined city as something that had to be very large, i.e. certain number of people or certain area? I tossed some of the wikipedia site you sent around the other day in Italian re: definition of cities (my Italian is also non-existant) and here is part of what it says. "Of the title of city, in Italy, you can boast those municipalities that have been awarded with the decree of the King (until 1946) or the provisional head of the state (until 1948) or the president of the Republic, by virtue of their historical importance , artistic, civic or demographic. Many other cities are given the title by virtue of legislative acts of pre-unification states, or they do so for ancient and uninterrupted custom ....." (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titolo_di_citt%C3%A0_in_Italia) I don't think that sort of think applies anywhere in North America. In Canada, it is the provinces that define cities, not the federal state, and I am sure artistic elements aren't part of it. #4 in the list below, which I am addressing, refers to defining a "city name". Is that considered to be an operation different from defining a "city." Can anyone elaborate? Marita On 6/26/2018 12:45 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Greg and all Maybe we may slowly creating some common ground… Yesterday in the cross-community discussion there were ideas (some I proposed myself) such as (1) setting a deadline for reacting to a letter of non-objection request; (2) establishing that application may go forward if there is no reaction by the relevant pubic authority within that set deadline; (3) helping the applicant in determining whether the intended string is a city name or not; this could be done by an advisory body bound to confidentiality; (4) creating greater predictability by deferring to local laws and policies defining what a “city name” is in each jurisdiction… something that in the age of big data should be rather simple… (5) helping the applicant in identifying the relevant public authorities, and in establishing contact with them; (6) establishing mediation or other dispute-resolution procedures when the applicant disagrees with the position taken by the relevant authority… Etc. These are all means to address some of the issues alleged on the functioning of the “non-objection”-letter framework, and to raise predictability and certainty for all parties, without breaking this model that in general (with some limited exceptions) worked well according to the reported data and facts. Hope this may be helpful Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 11:32 An: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Maybe somebody “neutral” could summarize the suggested measures for the treatment of (non-capital) cities? Right now an applicant (for a non-capital city) requires Government support only if there is geo-use intent! • Do we keep it that way, • do we protect important (e.g. sizeable) cities a bit more, • or do we skip the protections completely? Seems these are the 3 choices. In MY view! I would say there are more choices, or at least more variations, based on the type of mechanism used. There are mechanisms that come before the application is filed (e.g., the letter of consent/non-objection), mechanisms that come after the application is filed but during the application process (e.g., objections, and also letters of c/n-o if it's determined you must have one), and mechanisms that come after the TLD is delegated (Compliance issues, Dispute Resolution Procedures). In some of these mechanisms, the "protectable right" is presumed (letter of consent/non-objection) and in others the "protectable right" must be proven (basically, all of the other mechanisms). How these variables could apply to protection of a category of geographic terms is critical. "Protection" could be acceptable with one set of variables and unacceptable with another set of variables. For example, the right to make an objection may be an acceptable protection where a letter of c/n-j is not. If we frame this only as a choice between letters of consent/non-objection or no "protection" at all, the likelihood of reaching consensus drops drastically. We need to add methods of protection to the discussion of whether not protections should be granted in order to have the best chance of reaching consensus. Greg From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:42 AM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Dear WT5 colleagues, Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: " So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!" This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop. Kind regards, Heather Forrest On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this. Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)." But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that. If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust. Marita On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….” Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: • We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement • In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”) o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities • All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. • The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): • There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms! • In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! • So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? • Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! • Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? • The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). • As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! • The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! • I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! • The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us<mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov<mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ 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
Assuming there's any point to this exercise at all, how would one deal with places such as the Town of Hempstead, New York, with a population of 770,367, but not legally or politically a city? Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com> wrote:
Another quote from the same Wikipedia article:
A city is distinguished from other human settlements by its relatively great size, but also by its functions and its special symbolic status <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_status>, which may be conferred by a central authority.
Best,
Yrjö
------------------------------ *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 27, 2018 12:31 AM *To:* gregshatanipc@gmail.com *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
In general: e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City> City - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City> en.wikipedia.org A city is a large human settlement. Cities generally have extensive systems for housing, transportation, sanitation, utilities, land use, and communication.Their density facilitates interaction between people, government organizations and businesses, sometimes benefiting different parties in the process.
For Switzerland: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/ de/home/statistiken/kataloge-datenbanken/publikationen/ uebersichtsdarstellungen/statistik-schweizer-staedte.html
Anyway, we can take this offline if you wish – it would be great to hear other people waging in on the specific ideas suggested with the goal of improving the current system…
Best
Jorge
*Von:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 16:24 *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Cc:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Maybe I'll put the question more simply: What is a city?
Greg
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:00 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Well, cities are there. Cities have names. The public authorities and the populations of such cities care about their names, and the former have responsibilities, interests and, in some jurisdictions at least, rights on those identifiers.
But what is considered as a city is different from country to country.
So deferring to local laws and policies on what is considered in each case as a city is respectful of the sensitivities and increases predictability and certainty for all.
I feel that some deference to subsidiarity is quite a healthy exercise – in the end the fact that an entity is considered a city in a given country reflects that such identity as a city is relevant in that country.
e.g. in Switzerland we have specific criteria on what we consider a „city“ – we would rather not want to get that definition imposed on us…
best
Jorge
*Von:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:52 *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>
*Cc:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. I am asking why determining whether something is a "city" is useful in this context, when its meaning is so variable as to be virtually meaningless as a general term? It just shows that there is no consistent basis for this demand for city "protections", if there's any basis at all.
Greg
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:46 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
I guess I don’t understand your comment or I expressed myself very poorly: the word „city“ as such is not a geoname (as far as I know)…
With city I refer to what is defined as a city – the “city name” refers to the actual names of the entities considered as cities…
Hope this is clearer…
Best
Jorge
*Von:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:42 *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Cc:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
*Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
What is the value in the word "city"? Why does it matter whether a locale is called a "city" or some other thing -- especially if the definitions vary so broadly that using the term as a single classification is meaningless? This shows that deciding that "cities" have "rights" is certainly not based on any standard. This could become an exercise in developing meaninglessness out of meanings. That is no way to build a specification.
Greg
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:52 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Marita
Thanks very much for your feedback. I feel that subsidiarity means that you accept and are respectful of different solutions according to national laws and policies – setting an artificial one size fits all definition of “city” in ICANN is rather risky, difficult, and not respectful of different approaches at the local level. Perhaps this is a very Swiss thought, but one that works when different cultures, traditions and policies are at stake…
Btw: I was not intending to make a distinction between city and city name, beyond the intrinsic difference that in national policies and laws you will normally find a definition of “city” in the abstract (e.g. in Switzerland this is linked to size and other statistical elements) and “city name” is the geoname as such, i.e. the question whether a string xyz matches a name of an entity defined as a “city” according to the relevant national law or policy.
Best
Jorge
*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Marita Moll *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 13:35 *An:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
*Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi Jorge. I just have a thought on #4.
It would be nice if deferring to local laws was agreed upon, but would that be considered "fair" if one locality defined city as something that could be rather small but with a unique feature and another locality defined city as something that had to be very large, i.e. certain number of people or certain area? I tossed some of the wikipedia site you sent around the other day in Italian re: definition of cities (my Italian is also non-existant) and here is part of what it says.
"Of the title of city, in Italy, you can boast those municipalities that have been awarded with the decree of the King (until 1946) or the provisional head of the state (until 1948) or the president of the Republic, by virtue of their historical importance , artistic, civic or demographic. Many other cities are given the title by virtue of legislative acts of pre-unification states, or they do so for ancient and uninterrupted custom ....." (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titolo_di_citt%C3%A0_in_ Italia)
I don't think that sort of think applies anywhere in North America. In Canada, it is the provinces that define cities, not the federal state, and I am sure artistic elements aren't part of it.
#4 in the list below, which I am addressing, refers to defining a "city name". Is that considered to be an operation different from defining a "city." Can anyone elaborate?
Marita
On 6/26/2018 12:45 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Greg and all
Maybe we may slowly creating some common ground…
Yesterday in the cross-community discussion there were ideas (some I proposed myself) such as
(1) setting a deadline for reacting to a letter of non-objection request;
(2) establishing that application may go forward if there is no reaction by the relevant pubic authority within that set deadline;
(3) helping the applicant in determining whether the intended string is a city name or not; this could be done by an advisory body bound to confidentiality;
(4) creating greater predictability by deferring to local laws and policies defining what a “city name” is in each jurisdiction… something that in the age of big data should be rather simple…
(5) helping the applicant in identifying the relevant public authorities, and in establishing contact with them;
(6) establishing mediation or other dispute-resolution procedures when the applicant disagrees with the position taken by the relevant authority…
Etc.
These are all means to address some of the issues alleged on the functioning of the “non-objection”-letter framework, and to raise predictability and certainty for all parties, without breaking this model that in general (with some limited exceptions) worked well according to the reported data and facts.
Hope this may be helpful
Best
Jorge
*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Greg Shatan *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 11:32 *An:* alexander@schubert.berlin *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Maybe somebody “neutral” could summarize the suggested measures for the *treatment of (non-capital) cities*? Right now an applicant (for a non-capital city) requires Government support only if there is geo-use intent!
· Do we keep it that way,
· do we protect important (e.g. sizeable) cities a bit more,
· or do we skip the protections completely?
Seems these are the 3 choices. In MY view!
I would say there are more choices, or at least more variations, based on the type of mechanism used. There are mechanisms that come before the application is filed (e.g., the letter of consent/non-objection), mechanisms that come after the application is filed but during the application process (e.g., objections, and also letters of c/n-o if it's determined you must have one), and mechanisms that come after the TLD is delegated (Compliance issues, Dispute Resolution Procedures).
In some of these mechanisms, the "protectable right" is presumed (letter of consent/non-objection) and in others the "protectable right" must be proven (basically, all of the other mechanisms). How these variables could apply to protection of a category of geographic terms is critical. "Protection" could be acceptable with one set of variables and unacceptable with another set of variables. For example, the right to make an objection may be an acceptable protection where a letter of c/n-j is not.
If we frame this only as a choice between letters of consent/non-objection or no "protection" at all, the likelihood of reaching consensus drops drastically. We need to add methods of protection to the discussion of whether not protections should be granted in order to have the best chance of reaching consensus.
Greg
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Heather Forrest *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:42 AM *To:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Dear WT5 colleagues,
Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: "
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
· *Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
· *In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
· *And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!"*
This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop.
Kind regards,
Heather Forrest
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this.
Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)."
But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that.
If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust.
Marita
On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear Joe,
thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state:
*“……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around*
* the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….”*
Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view:
· We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement
· In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely:
o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”)
o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME)
o Capital cities
· All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules.
· The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up).
There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations):
· There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms!
· In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility!
· So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them?
· Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use!
· Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city?
· The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included).
· As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise!
· The compromise needs to:
o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains!
o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants!
· I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it:
o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on).
o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important!
o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city).
o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying!
· The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”!
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
· *Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
· *In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
· *And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!*
The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise.
A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable?
Anyone in?
Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Joe Alagna *Sent:* Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
*MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us <MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us>*
They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
*MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov <MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov>* (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So…
3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. *I would agree with that general principal* since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world.
6. Shouldn’t we *not* assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Colleagues Even though we’re trying to work out cities…we need rules that apply to all urban sites with tiny wee populations up to anything which isn’t a "capital city". Let’s not worry about arguing about what a city is…we just need to be able to put in place rules for applicants and evaluators that make clear that when someone applies for a potential geographic identifier which may also have other meanings, that it can be evaluated cleanly as a TLD. 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 26 Jun 2018, at 4:55 pm, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Assuming there's any point to this exercise at all, how would one deal with places such as the Town of Hempstead, New York, with a population of 770,367, but not legally or politically a city? Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com<mailto:yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com>> wrote: Another quote from the same Wikipedia article: A city is distinguished from other human settlements by its relatively great size, but also by its functions and its special symbolic status<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_status>, which may be conferred by a central authority. Best, Yrjö ________________________________ From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 12:31 AM To: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments In general: e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Alexandria_Waterfront_%282347809660%29.jpg/1200px-Alexandria_Waterfront_%282347809660%29.jpg]<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City> City - Wikipedia<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City> en.wikipedia.org<http://en.wikipedia.org/> A city is a large human settlement. Cities generally have extensive systems for housing, transportation, sanitation, utilities, land use, and communication.Their density facilitates interaction between people, government organizations and businesses, sometimes benefiting different parties in the process. For Switzerland: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/kataloge-datenbanken/publik... Anyway, we can take this offline if you wish – it would be great to hear other people waging in on the specific ideas suggested with the goal of improving the current system… Best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 16:24 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Maybe I'll put the question more simply: What is a city? Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:00 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Well, cities are there. Cities have names. The public authorities and the populations of such cities care about their names, and the former have responsibilities, interests and, in some jurisdictions at least, rights on those identifiers. But what is considered as a city is different from country to country. So deferring to local laws and policies on what is considered in each case as a city is respectful of the sensitivities and increases predictability and certainty for all. I feel that some deference to subsidiarity is quite a healthy exercise – in the end the fact that an entity is considered a city in a given country reflects that such identity as a city is relevant in that country. e.g. in Switzerland we have specific criteria on what we consider a „city“ – we would rather not want to get that definition imposed on us… best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:52 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. I am asking why determining whether something is a "city" is useful in this context, when its meaning is so variable as to be virtually meaningless as a general term? It just shows that there is no consistent basis for this demand for city "protections", if there's any basis at all. Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:46 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: I guess I don’t understand your comment or I expressed myself very poorly: the word „city“ as such is not a geoname (as far as I know)… With city I refer to what is defined as a city – the “city name” refers to the actual names of the entities considered as cities… Hope this is clearer… Best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:42 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments What is the value in the word "city"? Why does it matter whether a locale is called a "city" or some other thing -- especially if the definitions vary so broadly that using the term as a single classification is meaningless? This shows that deciding that "cities" have "rights" is certainly not based on any standard. This could become an exercise in developing meaninglessness out of meanings. That is no way to build a specification. Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:52 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Marita Thanks very much for your feedback. I feel that subsidiarity means that you accept and are respectful of different solutions according to national laws and policies – setting an artificial one size fits all definition of “city” in ICANN is rather risky, difficult, and not respectful of different approaches at the local level. Perhaps this is a very Swiss thought, but one that works when different cultures, traditions and policies are at stake… Btw: I was not intending to make a distinction between city and city name, beyond the intrinsic difference that in national policies and laws you will normally find a definition of “city” in the abstract (e.g. in Switzerland this is linked to size and other statistical elements) and “city name” is the geoname as such, i.e. the question whether a string xyz matches a name of an entity defined as a “city” according to the relevant national law or policy. Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Marita Moll Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 13:35 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi Jorge. I just have a thought on #4. It would be nice if deferring to local laws was agreed upon, but would that be considered "fair" if one locality defined city as something that could be rather small but with a unique feature and another locality defined city as something that had to be very large, i.e. certain number of people or certain area? I tossed some of the wikipedia site you sent around the other day in Italian re: definition of cities (my Italian is also non-existant) and here is part of what it says. "Of the title of city, in Italy, you can boast those municipalities that have been awarded with the decree of the King (until 1946) or the provisional head of the state (until 1948) or the president of the Republic, by virtue of their historical importance , artistic, civic or demographic. Many other cities are given the title by virtue of legislative acts of pre-unification states, or they do so for ancient and uninterrupted custom ....." (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titolo_di_citt%C3%A0_in_Italia) I don't think that sort of think applies anywhere in North America. In Canada, it is the provinces that define cities, not the federal state, and I am sure artistic elements aren't part of it. #4 in the list below, which I am addressing, refers to defining a "city name". Is that considered to be an operation different from defining a "city." Can anyone elaborate? Marita On 6/26/2018 12:45 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Greg and all Maybe we may slowly creating some common ground… Yesterday in the cross-community discussion there were ideas (some I proposed myself) such as (1) setting a deadline for reacting to a letter of non-objection request; (2) establishing that application may go forward if there is no reaction by the relevant pubic authority within that set deadline; (3) helping the applicant in determining whether the intended string is a city name or not; this could be done by an advisory body bound to confidentiality; (4) creating greater predictability by deferring to local laws and policies defining what a “city name” is in each jurisdiction… something that in the age of big data should be rather simple… (5) helping the applicant in identifying the relevant public authorities, and in establishing contact with them; (6) establishing mediation or other dispute-resolution procedures when the applicant disagrees with the position taken by the relevant authority… Etc. These are all means to address some of the issues alleged on the functioning of the “non-objection”-letter framework, and to raise predictability and certainty for all parties, without breaking this model that in general (with some limited exceptions) worked well according to the reported data and facts. Hope this may be helpful Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 11:32 An: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Maybe somebody “neutral” could summarize the suggested measures for the treatment of (non-capital) cities? Right now an applicant (for a non-capital city) requires Government support only if there is geo-use intent! • Do we keep it that way, • do we protect important (e.g. sizeable) cities a bit more, • or do we skip the protections completely? Seems these are the 3 choices. In MY view! I would say there are more choices, or at least more variations, based on the type of mechanism used. There are mechanisms that come before the application is filed (e.g., the letter of consent/non-objection), mechanisms that come after the application is filed but during the application process (e.g., objections, and also letters of c/n-o if it's determined you must have one), and mechanisms that come after the TLD is delegated (Compliance issues, Dispute Resolution Procedures). In some of these mechanisms, the "protectable right" is presumed (letter of consent/non-objection) and in others the "protectable right" must be proven (basically, all of the other mechanisms). How these variables could apply to protection of a category of geographic terms is critical. "Protection" could be acceptable with one set of variables and unacceptable with another set of variables. For example, the right to make an objection may be an acceptable protection where a letter of c/n-j is not. If we frame this only as a choice between letters of consent/non-objection or no "protection" at all, the likelihood of reaching consensus drops drastically. We need to add methods of protection to the discussion of whether not protections should be granted in order to have the best chance of reaching consensus. Greg From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:42 AM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Dear WT5 colleagues, Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: " So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!" This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop. Kind regards, Heather Forrest On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this. Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)." But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that. If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust. Marita On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….” Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: • We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement • In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”) o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities • All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. • The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): • There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms! • In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! • So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? • Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! • Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? • The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). • As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! • The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! • I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! • The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us<mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov<mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Not sure what the value of a Wikipedia article is in this case, but lets take it as a resource. Should we test each of the things it cites as a defining characteristic of a "city" against the local definitions of "city" to see which ones make the grade? (E.g., "Present-day cities usually form the core of larger metropolitan areas and urban areas—creating numerous commuters traveling towards city centers for employment, entertainment, and edification." Or would this make for a lack of "subsidiarity"? Greg Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:31 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
In general: e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City
For Switzerland: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/ de/home/statistiken/kataloge-datenbanken/publikationen/ uebersichtsdarstellungen/statistik-schweizer-staedte.html
Anyway, we can take this offline if you wish – it would be great to hear other people waging in on the specific ideas suggested with the goal of improving the current system…
Best
Jorge
*Von:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 16:24
*An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Cc:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Maybe I'll put the question more simply: What is a city?
Greg
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:00 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Well, cities are there. Cities have names. The public authorities and the populations of such cities care about their names, and the former have responsibilities, interests and, in some jurisdictions at least, rights on those identifiers.
But what is considered as a city is different from country to country.
So deferring to local laws and policies on what is considered in each case as a city is respectful of the sensitivities and increases predictability and certainty for all.
I feel that some deference to subsidiarity is quite a healthy exercise – in the end the fact that an entity is considered a city in a given country reflects that such identity as a city is relevant in that country.
e.g. in Switzerland we have specific criteria on what we consider a „city“ – we would rather not want to get that definition imposed on us…
best
Jorge
*Von:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:52 *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>
*Cc:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. I am asking why determining whether something is a "city" is useful in this context, when its meaning is so variable as to be virtually meaningless as a general term? It just shows that there is no consistent basis for this demand for city "protections", if there's any basis at all.
Greg
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:46 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
I guess I don’t understand your comment or I expressed myself very poorly: the word „city“ as such is not a geoname (as far as I know)…
With city I refer to what is defined as a city – the “city name” refers to the actual names of the entities considered as cities…
Hope this is clearer…
Best
Jorge
*Von:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:42 *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Cc:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
*Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
What is the value in the word "city"? Why does it matter whether a locale is called a "city" or some other thing -- especially if the definitions vary so broadly that using the term as a single classification is meaningless? This shows that deciding that "cities" have "rights" is certainly not based on any standard. This could become an exercise in developing meaninglessness out of meanings. That is no way to build a specification.
Greg
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:52 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Marita
Thanks very much for your feedback. I feel that subsidiarity means that you accept and are respectful of different solutions according to national laws and policies – setting an artificial one size fits all definition of “city” in ICANN is rather risky, difficult, and not respectful of different approaches at the local level. Perhaps this is a very Swiss thought, but one that works when different cultures, traditions and policies are at stake…
Btw: I was not intending to make a distinction between city and city name, beyond the intrinsic difference that in national policies and laws you will normally find a definition of “city” in the abstract (e.g. in Switzerland this is linked to size and other statistical elements) and “city name” is the geoname as such, i.e. the question whether a string xyz matches a name of an entity defined as a “city” according to the relevant national law or policy.
Best
Jorge
*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Marita Moll *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 13:35 *An:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
*Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi Jorge. I just have a thought on #4.
It would be nice if deferring to local laws was agreed upon, but would that be considered "fair" if one locality defined city as something that could be rather small but with a unique feature and another locality defined city as something that had to be very large, i.e. certain number of people or certain area? I tossed some of the wikipedia site you sent around the other day in Italian re: definition of cities (my Italian is also non-existant) and here is part of what it says.
"Of the title of city, in Italy, you can boast those municipalities that have been awarded with the decree of the King (until 1946) or the provisional head of the state (until 1948) or the president of the Republic, by virtue of their historical importance , artistic, civic or demographic. Many other cities are given the title by virtue of legislative acts of pre-unification states, or they do so for ancient and uninterrupted custom ....." (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titolo_di_citt%C3%A0_in_ Italia)
I don't think that sort of think applies anywhere in North America. In Canada, it is the provinces that define cities, not the federal state, and I am sure artistic elements aren't part of it.
#4 in the list below, which I am addressing, refers to defining a "city name". Is that considered to be an operation different from defining a "city." Can anyone elaborate?
Marita
On 6/26/2018 12:45 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Greg and all
Maybe we may slowly creating some common ground…
Yesterday in the cross-community discussion there were ideas (some I proposed myself) such as
(1) setting a deadline for reacting to a letter of non-objection request;
(2) establishing that application may go forward if there is no reaction by the relevant pubic authority within that set deadline;
(3) helping the applicant in determining whether the intended string is a city name or not; this could be done by an advisory body bound to confidentiality;
(4) creating greater predictability by deferring to local laws and policies defining what a “city name” is in each jurisdiction… something that in the age of big data should be rather simple…
(5) helping the applicant in identifying the relevant public authorities, and in establishing contact with them;
(6) establishing mediation or other dispute-resolution procedures when the applicant disagrees with the position taken by the relevant authority…
Etc.
These are all means to address some of the issues alleged on the functioning of the “non-objection”-letter framework, and to raise predictability and certainty for all parties, without breaking this model that in general (with some limited exceptions) worked well according to the reported data and facts.
Hope this may be helpful
Best
Jorge
*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Greg Shatan *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 11:32 *An:* alexander@schubert.berlin *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Maybe somebody “neutral” could summarize the suggested measures for the *treatment of (non-capital) cities*? Right now an applicant (for a non-capital city) requires Government support only if there is geo-use intent!
· Do we keep it that way,
· do we protect important (e.g. sizeable) cities a bit more,
· or do we skip the protections completely?
Seems these are the 3 choices. In MY view!
I would say there are more choices, or at least more variations, based on the type of mechanism used. There are mechanisms that come before the application is filed (e.g., the letter of consent/non-objection), mechanisms that come after the application is filed but during the application process (e.g., objections, and also letters of c/n-o if it's determined you must have one), and mechanisms that come after the TLD is delegated (Compliance issues, Dispute Resolution Procedures).
In some of these mechanisms, the "protectable right" is presumed (letter of consent/non-objection) and in others the "protectable right" must be proven (basically, all of the other mechanisms). How these variables could apply to protection of a category of geographic terms is critical. "Protection" could be acceptable with one set of variables and unacceptable with another set of variables. For example, the right to make an objection may be an acceptable protection where a letter of c/n-j is not.
If we frame this only as a choice between letters of consent/non-objection or no "protection" at all, the likelihood of reaching consensus drops drastically. We need to add methods of protection to the discussion of whether not protections should be granted in order to have the best chance of reaching consensus.
Greg
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Heather Forrest *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:42 AM *To:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Dear WT5 colleagues,
Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: "
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
· *Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
· *In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
· *And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!"*
This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop.
Kind regards,
Heather Forrest
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this.
Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)."
But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that.
If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust.
Marita
On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear Joe,
thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state:
*“……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around*
* the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….”*
Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view:
· We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement
· In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely:
o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”)
o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME)
o Capital cities
· All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules.
· The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up).
There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations):
· There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms!
· In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility!
· So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them?
· Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use!
· Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city?
· The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included).
· As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise!
· The compromise needs to:
o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains!
o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants!
· I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it:
o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on).
o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important!
o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city).
o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying!
· The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”!
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
· *Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
· *In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
· *And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!*
The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise.
A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable?
Anyone in?
Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Joe Alagna *Sent:* Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
*MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us <MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us>*
They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
*MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov <MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov>* (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So…
3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. *I would agree with that general principal* since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world.
6. Shouldn’t we *not* assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
I must be expressing myself very poorly… I think I made it clear that deferring to national/local definitions is best IMO, and I contributed information on how city is defined in my country, as one example – guess that in way of implementation it would be simple (in these big data days) to compile the relevant resources of the relevant national/local definitions… but as you asked about what is a city in general I thought that the Wikipedia article could give you a more general flavor... Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 16:50 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Not sure what the value of a Wikipedia article is in this case, but lets take it as a resource. Should we test each of the things it cites as a defining characteristic of a "city" against the local definitions of "city" to see which ones make the grade? (E.g., "Present-day cities usually form the core of larger metropolitan areas and urban areas—creating numerous commuters traveling towards city centers for employment, entertainment, and edification." Or would this make for a lack of "subsidiarity"? Greg Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:31 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: In general: e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City For Switzerland: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/kataloge-datenbanken/publik... Anyway, we can take this offline if you wish – it would be great to hear other people waging in on the specific ideas suggested with the goal of improving the current system… Best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 16:24 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Maybe I'll put the question more simply: What is a city? Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:00 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Well, cities are there. Cities have names. The public authorities and the populations of such cities care about their names, and the former have responsibilities, interests and, in some jurisdictions at least, rights on those identifiers. But what is considered as a city is different from country to country. So deferring to local laws and policies on what is considered in each case as a city is respectful of the sensitivities and increases predictability and certainty for all. I feel that some deference to subsidiarity is quite a healthy exercise – in the end the fact that an entity is considered a city in a given country reflects that such identity as a city is relevant in that country. e.g. in Switzerland we have specific criteria on what we consider a „city“ – we would rather not want to get that definition imposed on us… best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:52 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. I am asking why determining whether something is a "city" is useful in this context, when its meaning is so variable as to be virtually meaningless as a general term? It just shows that there is no consistent basis for this demand for city "protections", if there's any basis at all. Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:46 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: I guess I don’t understand your comment or I expressed myself very poorly: the word „city“ as such is not a geoname (as far as I know)… With city I refer to what is defined as a city – the “city name” refers to the actual names of the entities considered as cities… Hope this is clearer… Best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:42 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments What is the value in the word "city"? Why does it matter whether a locale is called a "city" or some other thing -- especially if the definitions vary so broadly that using the term as a single classification is meaningless? This shows that deciding that "cities" have "rights" is certainly not based on any standard. This could become an exercise in developing meaninglessness out of meanings. That is no way to build a specification. Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:52 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Marita Thanks very much for your feedback. I feel that subsidiarity means that you accept and are respectful of different solutions according to national laws and policies – setting an artificial one size fits all definition of “city” in ICANN is rather risky, difficult, and not respectful of different approaches at the local level. Perhaps this is a very Swiss thought, but one that works when different cultures, traditions and policies are at stake… Btw: I was not intending to make a distinction between city and city name, beyond the intrinsic difference that in national policies and laws you will normally find a definition of “city” in the abstract (e.g. in Switzerland this is linked to size and other statistical elements) and “city name” is the geoname as such, i.e. the question whether a string xyz matches a name of an entity defined as a “city” according to the relevant national law or policy. Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Marita Moll Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 13:35 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi Jorge. I just have a thought on #4. It would be nice if deferring to local laws was agreed upon, but would that be considered "fair" if one locality defined city as something that could be rather small but with a unique feature and another locality defined city as something that had to be very large, i.e. certain number of people or certain area? I tossed some of the wikipedia site you sent around the other day in Italian re: definition of cities (my Italian is also non-existant) and here is part of what it says. "Of the title of city, in Italy, you can boast those municipalities that have been awarded with the decree of the King (until 1946) or the provisional head of the state (until 1948) or the president of the Republic, by virtue of their historical importance , artistic, civic or demographic. Many other cities are given the title by virtue of legislative acts of pre-unification states, or they do so for ancient and uninterrupted custom ....." (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titolo_di_citt%C3%A0_in_Italia) I don't think that sort of think applies anywhere in North America. In Canada, it is the provinces that define cities, not the federal state, and I am sure artistic elements aren't part of it. #4 in the list below, which I am addressing, refers to defining a "city name". Is that considered to be an operation different from defining a "city." Can anyone elaborate? Marita On 6/26/2018 12:45 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Greg and all Maybe we may slowly creating some common ground… Yesterday in the cross-community discussion there were ideas (some I proposed myself) such as (1) setting a deadline for reacting to a letter of non-objection request; (2) establishing that application may go forward if there is no reaction by the relevant pubic authority within that set deadline; (3) helping the applicant in determining whether the intended string is a city name or not; this could be done by an advisory body bound to confidentiality; (4) creating greater predictability by deferring to local laws and policies defining what a “city name” is in each jurisdiction… something that in the age of big data should be rather simple… (5) helping the applicant in identifying the relevant public authorities, and in establishing contact with them; (6) establishing mediation or other dispute-resolution procedures when the applicant disagrees with the position taken by the relevant authority… Etc. These are all means to address some of the issues alleged on the functioning of the “non-objection”-letter framework, and to raise predictability and certainty for all parties, without breaking this model that in general (with some limited exceptions) worked well according to the reported data and facts. Hope this may be helpful Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 11:32 An: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Maybe somebody “neutral” could summarize the suggested measures for the treatment of (non-capital) cities? Right now an applicant (for a non-capital city) requires Government support only if there is geo-use intent! • Do we keep it that way, • do we protect important (e.g. sizeable) cities a bit more, • or do we skip the protections completely? Seems these are the 3 choices. In MY view! I would say there are more choices, or at least more variations, based on the type of mechanism used. There are mechanisms that come before the application is filed (e.g., the letter of consent/non-objection), mechanisms that come after the application is filed but during the application process (e.g., objections, and also letters of c/n-o if it's determined you must have one), and mechanisms that come after the TLD is delegated (Compliance issues, Dispute Resolution Procedures). In some of these mechanisms, the "protectable right" is presumed (letter of consent/non-objection) and in others the "protectable right" must be proven (basically, all of the other mechanisms). How these variables could apply to protection of a category of geographic terms is critical. "Protection" could be acceptable with one set of variables and unacceptable with another set of variables. For example, the right to make an objection may be an acceptable protection where a letter of c/n-j is not. If we frame this only as a choice between letters of consent/non-objection or no "protection" at all, the likelihood of reaching consensus drops drastically. We need to add methods of protection to the discussion of whether not protections should be granted in order to have the best chance of reaching consensus. Greg From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:42 AM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Dear WT5 colleagues, Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: " So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!" This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop. Kind regards, Heather Forrest On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this. Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)." But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that. If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust. Marita On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….” Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: • We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement • In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”) o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities • All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. • The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): • There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms! • In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! • So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? • Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! • Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? • The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). • As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! • The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! • I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! • The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us<mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov<mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ 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
I’m not sure that can work – now an applicant would have to be familiar with the law of 190+ nations to determine which are “cities” and which are not and therefore which need to pre-clear the application and which don’t. ICANN is an international organization. It works because it relies on international standards. If there is an international standard on what defines a city, that’s a plausible ground (though I would disagree with it in substance). The idea that an applicant needs to know Swiss law and Bhutanese law and Kazahk law on defining cities is simply not realistic. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 6:17 PM To: gregshatanipc@gmail.com Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments I must be expressing myself very poorly… I think I made it clear that deferring to national/local definitions is best IMO, and I contributed information on how city is defined in my country, as one example – guess that in way of implementation it would be simple (in these big data days) to compile the relevant resources of the relevant national/local definitions… but as you asked about what is a city in general I thought that the Wikipedia article could give you a more general flavor... Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 16:50 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> >; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Not sure what the value of a Wikipedia article is in this case, but lets take it as a resource. Should we test each of the things it cites as a defining characteristic of a "city" against the local definitions of "city" to see which ones make the grade? (E.g., "Present-day cities usually form the core of larger metropolitan areas and urban areas—creating numerous commuters traveling towards city centers for employment, entertainment, and edification." Or would this make for a lack of "subsidiarity"? Greg Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:31 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > wrote: In general: e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City For Switzerland: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/kataloge-datenbanken/publik... Anyway, we can take this offline if you wish – it would be great to hear other people waging in on the specific ideas suggested with the goal of improving the current system… Best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> ] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 16:24 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> >; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Maybe I'll put the question more simply: What is a city? Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:00 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > wrote: Well, cities are there. Cities have names. The public authorities and the populations of such cities care about their names, and the former have responsibilities, interests and, in some jurisdictions at least, rights on those identifiers. But what is considered as a city is different from country to country. So deferring to local laws and policies on what is considered in each case as a city is respectful of the sensitivities and increases predictability and certainty for all. I feel that some deference to subsidiarity is quite a healthy exercise – in the end the fact that an entity is considered a city in a given country reflects that such identity as a city is relevant in that country. e.g. in Switzerland we have specific criteria on what we consider a „city“ – we would rather not want to get that definition imposed on us… best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> ] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:52 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> >; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. I am asking why determining whether something is a "city" is useful in this context, when its meaning is so variable as to be virtually meaningless as a general term? It just shows that there is no consistent basis for this demand for city "protections", if there's any basis at all. Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:46 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > wrote: I guess I don’t understand your comment or I expressed myself very poorly: the word „city“ as such is not a geoname (as far as I know)… With city I refer to what is defined as a city – the “city name” refers to the actual names of the entities considered as cities… Hope this is clearer… Best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> ] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:42 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> >; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments What is the value in the word "city"? Why does it matter whether a locale is called a "city" or some other thing -- especially if the definitions vary so broadly that using the term as a single classification is meaningless? This shows that deciding that "cities" have "rights" is certainly not based on any standard. This could become an exercise in developing meaninglessness out of meanings. That is no way to build a specification. Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:52 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > wrote: Dear Marita Thanks very much for your feedback. I feel that subsidiarity means that you accept and are respectful of different solutions according to national laws and policies – setting an artificial one size fits all definition of “city” in ICANN is rather risky, difficult, and not respectful of different approaches at the local level. Perhaps this is a very Swiss thought, but one that works when different cultures, traditions and policies are at stake… Btw: I was not intending to make a distinction between city and city name, beyond the intrinsic difference that in national policies and laws you will normally find a definition of “city” in the abstract (e.g. in Switzerland this is linked to size and other statistical elements) and “city name” is the geoname as such, i.e. the question whether a string xyz matches a name of an entity defined as a “city” according to the relevant national law or policy. Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> ] Im Auftrag von Marita Moll Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 13:35 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi Jorge. I just have a thought on #4. It would be nice if deferring to local laws was agreed upon, but would that be considered "fair" if one locality defined city as something that could be rather small but with a unique feature and another locality defined city as something that had to be very large, i.e. certain number of people or certain area? I tossed some of the wikipedia site you sent around the other day in Italian re: definition of cities (my Italian is also non-existant) and here is part of what it says. "Of the title of city, in Italy, you can boast those municipalities that have been awarded with the decree of the King (until 1946) or the provisional head of the state (until 1948) or the president of the Republic, by virtue of their historical importance , artistic, civic or demographic. Many other cities are given the title by virtue of legislative acts of pre-unification states, or they do so for ancient and uninterrupted custom ....." (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titolo_di_citt%C3%A0_in_Italia) I don't think that sort of think applies anywhere in North America. In Canada, it is the provinces that define cities, not the federal state, and I am sure artistic elements aren't part of it. #4 in the list below, which I am addressing, refers to defining a "city name". Is that considered to be an operation different from defining a "city." Can anyone elaborate? Marita On 6/26/2018 12:45 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Greg and all Maybe we may slowly creating some common ground… Yesterday in the cross-community discussion there were ideas (some I proposed myself) such as (1) setting a deadline for reacting to a letter of non-objection request; (2) establishing that application may go forward if there is no reaction by the relevant pubic authority within that set deadline; (3) helping the applicant in determining whether the intended string is a city name or not; this could be done by an advisory body bound to confidentiality; (4) creating greater predictability by deferring to local laws and policies defining what a “city name” is in each jurisdiction… something that in the age of big data should be rather simple… (5) helping the applicant in identifying the relevant public authorities, and in establishing contact with them; (6) establishing mediation or other dispute-resolution procedures when the applicant disagrees with the position taken by the relevant authority… Etc. These are all means to address some of the issues alleged on the functioning of the “non-objection”-letter framework, and to raise predictability and certainty for all parties, without breaking this model that in general (with some limited exceptions) worked well according to the reported data and facts. Hope this may be helpful Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 11:32 An: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Maybe somebody “neutral” could summarize the suggested measures for the treatment of (non-capital) cities? Right now an applicant (for a non-capital city) requires Government support only if there is geo-use intent! * Do we keep it that way, * do we protect important (e.g. sizeable) cities a bit more, * or do we skip the protections completely? Seems these are the 3 choices. In MY view! I would say there are more choices, or at least more variations, based on the type of mechanism used. There are mechanisms that come before the application is filed (e.g., the letter of consent/non-objection), mechanisms that come after the application is filed but during the application process (e.g., objections, and also letters of c/n-o if it's determined you must have one), and mechanisms that come after the TLD is delegated (Compliance issues, Dispute Resolution Procedures). In some of these mechanisms, the "protectable right" is presumed (letter of consent/non-objection) and in others the "protectable right" must be proven (basically, all of the other mechanisms). How these variables could apply to protection of a category of geographic terms is critical. "Protection" could be acceptable with one set of variables and unacceptable with another set of variables. For example, the right to make an objection may be an acceptable protection where a letter of c/n-j is not. If we frame this only as a choice between letters of consent/non-objection or no "protection" at all, the likelihood of reaching consensus drops drastically. We need to add methods of protection to the discussion of whether not protections should be granted in order to have the best chance of reaching consensus. Greg From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:42 AM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Dear WT5 colleagues, Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: " So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: * Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! * In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) * And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!" This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop. Kind regards, Heather Forrest On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> > wrote: Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this. Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)." But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that. If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust. Marita On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….” Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: * We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement * In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”) o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities * All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. * The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): * There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms! * In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! * So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? * Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! * Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? * The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). * As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! * The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! * I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! * The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: * Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! * In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) * And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: <mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: <mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ 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 Paul You may overlooked that I suggested that this information may be assembled by ICANN and offered to potential applicants through e.g. an advisory panel – see points (3) and (4) I proposed at the beginning… In the age of big data that should be simple. sorry if I did not express this with absolute clarity… Best Jorge Von: Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2018 16:26 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; gregshatanipc@gmail.com Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments I’m not sure that can work – now an applicant would have to be familiar with the law of 190+ nations to determine which are “cities” and which are not and therefore which need to pre-clear the application and which don’t. ICANN is an international organization. It works because it relies on international standards. If there is an international standard on what defines a city, that’s a plausible ground (though I would disagree with it in substance). The idea that an applicant needs to know Swiss law and Bhutanese law and Kazahk law on defining cities is simply not realistic. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 6:17 PM To: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments I must be expressing myself very poorly… I think I made it clear that deferring to national/local definitions is best IMO, and I contributed information on how city is defined in my country, as one example – guess that in way of implementation it would be simple (in these big data days) to compile the relevant resources of the relevant national/local definitions… but as you asked about what is a city in general I thought that the Wikipedia article could give you a more general flavor... Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 16:50 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Not sure what the value of a Wikipedia article is in this case, but lets take it as a resource. Should we test each of the things it cites as a defining characteristic of a "city" against the local definitions of "city" to see which ones make the grade? (E.g., "Present-day cities usually form the core of larger metropolitan areas and urban areas—creating numerous commuters traveling towards city centers for employment, entertainment, and edification." Or would this make for a lack of "subsidiarity"? Greg Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:31 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: In general: e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City For Switzerland: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/kataloge-datenbanken/publik... Anyway, we can take this offline if you wish – it would be great to hear other people waging in on the specific ideas suggested with the goal of improving the current system… Best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 16:24 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Maybe I'll put the question more simply: What is a city? Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:00 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Well, cities are there. Cities have names. The public authorities and the populations of such cities care about their names, and the former have responsibilities, interests and, in some jurisdictions at least, rights on those identifiers. But what is considered as a city is different from country to country. So deferring to local laws and policies on what is considered in each case as a city is respectful of the sensitivities and increases predictability and certainty for all. I feel that some deference to subsidiarity is quite a healthy exercise – in the end the fact that an entity is considered a city in a given country reflects that such identity as a city is relevant in that country. e.g. in Switzerland we have specific criteria on what we consider a „city“ – we would rather not want to get that definition imposed on us… best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:52 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. I am asking why determining whether something is a "city" is useful in this context, when its meaning is so variable as to be virtually meaningless as a general term? It just shows that there is no consistent basis for this demand for city "protections", if there's any basis at all. Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:46 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: I guess I don’t understand your comment or I expressed myself very poorly: the word „city“ as such is not a geoname (as far as I know)… With city I refer to what is defined as a city – the “city name” refers to the actual names of the entities considered as cities… Hope this is clearer… Best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:42 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments What is the value in the word "city"? Why does it matter whether a locale is called a "city" or some other thing -- especially if the definitions vary so broadly that using the term as a single classification is meaningless? This shows that deciding that "cities" have "rights" is certainly not based on any standard. This could become an exercise in developing meaninglessness out of meanings. That is no way to build a specification. Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:52 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Marita Thanks very much for your feedback. I feel that subsidiarity means that you accept and are respectful of different solutions according to national laws and policies – setting an artificial one size fits all definition of “city” in ICANN is rather risky, difficult, and not respectful of different approaches at the local level. Perhaps this is a very Swiss thought, but one that works when different cultures, traditions and policies are at stake… Btw: I was not intending to make a distinction between city and city name, beyond the intrinsic difference that in national policies and laws you will normally find a definition of “city” in the abstract (e.g. in Switzerland this is linked to size and other statistical elements) and “city name” is the geoname as such, i.e. the question whether a string xyz matches a name of an entity defined as a “city” according to the relevant national law or policy. Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Marita Moll Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 13:35 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi Jorge. I just have a thought on #4. It would be nice if deferring to local laws was agreed upon, but would that be considered "fair" if one locality defined city as something that could be rather small but with a unique feature and another locality defined city as something that had to be very large, i.e. certain number of people or certain area? I tossed some of the wikipedia site you sent around the other day in Italian re: definition of cities (my Italian is also non-existant) and here is part of what it says. "Of the title of city, in Italy, you can boast those municipalities that have been awarded with the decree of the King (until 1946) or the provisional head of the state (until 1948) or the president of the Republic, by virtue of their historical importance , artistic, civic or demographic. Many other cities are given the title by virtue of legislative acts of pre-unification states, or they do so for ancient and uninterrupted custom ....." (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titolo_di_citt%C3%A0_in_Italia) I don't think that sort of think applies anywhere in North America. In Canada, it is the provinces that define cities, not the federal state, and I am sure artistic elements aren't part of it. #4 in the list below, which I am addressing, refers to defining a "city name". Is that considered to be an operation different from defining a "city." Can anyone elaborate? Marita On 6/26/2018 12:45 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Greg and all Maybe we may slowly creating some common ground… Yesterday in the cross-community discussion there were ideas (some I proposed myself) such as (1) setting a deadline for reacting to a letter of non-objection request; (2) establishing that application may go forward if there is no reaction by the relevant pubic authority within that set deadline; (3) helping the applicant in determining whether the intended string is a city name or not; this could be done by an advisory body bound to confidentiality; (4) creating greater predictability by deferring to local laws and policies defining what a “city name” is in each jurisdiction… something that in the age of big data should be rather simple… (5) helping the applicant in identifying the relevant public authorities, and in establishing contact with them; (6) establishing mediation or other dispute-resolution procedures when the applicant disagrees with the position taken by the relevant authority… Etc. These are all means to address some of the issues alleged on the functioning of the “non-objection”-letter framework, and to raise predictability and certainty for all parties, without breaking this model that in general (with some limited exceptions) worked well according to the reported data and facts. Hope this may be helpful Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 11:32 An: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Maybe somebody “neutral” could summarize the suggested measures for the treatment of (non-capital) cities? Right now an applicant (for a non-capital city) requires Government support only if there is geo-use intent! • Do we keep it that way, • do we protect important (e.g. sizeable) cities a bit more, • or do we skip the protections completely? Seems these are the 3 choices. In MY view! I would say there are more choices, or at least more variations, based on the type of mechanism used. There are mechanisms that come before the application is filed (e.g., the letter of consent/non-objection), mechanisms that come after the application is filed but during the application process (e.g., objections, and also letters of c/n-o if it's determined you must have one), and mechanisms that come after the TLD is delegated (Compliance issues, Dispute Resolution Procedures). In some of these mechanisms, the "protectable right" is presumed (letter of consent/non-objection) and in others the "protectable right" must be proven (basically, all of the other mechanisms). How these variables could apply to protection of a category of geographic terms is critical. "Protection" could be acceptable with one set of variables and unacceptable with another set of variables. For example, the right to make an objection may be an acceptable protection where a letter of c/n-j is not. If we frame this only as a choice between letters of consent/non-objection or no "protection" at all, the likelihood of reaching consensus drops drastically. We need to add methods of protection to the discussion of whether not protections should be granted in order to have the best chance of reaching consensus. Greg From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:42 AM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Dear WT5 colleagues, Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: " So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!" This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop. Kind regards, Heather Forrest On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this. Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)." But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that. If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust. Marita On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….” Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: • We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement • In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”) o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities • All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. • The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): • There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms! • In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! • So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? • Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! • Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? • The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). • As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! • The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! • I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! • The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us<mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov<mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ 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
No, I didn’t overlook that. It just transfers the burden to someone else and either makes ICANN the judge of ambiguity or makes ambiguity the rule. And, no, this is not an easy task … I’m glad you think it is … so I invite the Swiss government to do it for the world :0) Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 5:31 PM To: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; gregshatanipc@gmail.com Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Dear Paul You may overlooked that I suggested that this information may be assembled by ICANN and offered to potential applicants through e.g. an advisory panel – see points (3) and (4) I proposed at the beginning… In the age of big data that should be simple. sorry if I did not express this with absolute clarity… Best Jorge Von: Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2018 16:26 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >; gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments I’m not sure that can work – now an applicant would have to be familiar with the law of 190+ nations to determine which are “cities” and which are not and therefore which need to pre-clear the application and which don’t. ICANN is an international organization. It works because it relies on international standards. If there is an international standard on what defines a city, that’s a plausible ground (though I would disagree with it in substance). The idea that an applicant needs to know Swiss law and Bhutanese law and Kazahk law on defining cities is simply not realistic. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 6:17 PM To: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments I must be expressing myself very poorly… I think I made it clear that deferring to national/local definitions is best IMO, and I contributed information on how city is defined in my country, as one example – guess that in way of implementation it would be simple (in these big data days) to compile the relevant resources of the relevant national/local definitions… but as you asked about what is a city in general I thought that the Wikipedia article could give you a more general flavor... Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 16:50 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> >; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Not sure what the value of a Wikipedia article is in this case, but lets take it as a resource. Should we test each of the things it cites as a defining characteristic of a "city" against the local definitions of "city" to see which ones make the grade? (E.g., "Present-day cities usually form the core of larger metropolitan areas and urban areas—creating numerous commuters traveling towards city centers for employment, entertainment, and edification." Or would this make for a lack of "subsidiarity"? Greg Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:31 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > wrote: In general: e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City For Switzerland: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/kataloge-datenbanken/publik... Anyway, we can take this offline if you wish – it would be great to hear other people waging in on the specific ideas suggested with the goal of improving the current system… Best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> ] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 16:24 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> >; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Maybe I'll put the question more simply: What is a city? Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:00 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > wrote: Well, cities are there. Cities have names. The public authorities and the populations of such cities care about their names, and the former have responsibilities, interests and, in some jurisdictions at least, rights on those identifiers. But what is considered as a city is different from country to country. So deferring to local laws and policies on what is considered in each case as a city is respectful of the sensitivities and increases predictability and certainty for all. I feel that some deference to subsidiarity is quite a healthy exercise – in the end the fact that an entity is considered a city in a given country reflects that such identity as a city is relevant in that country. e.g. in Switzerland we have specific criteria on what we consider a „city“ – we would rather not want to get that definition imposed on us… best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> ] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:52 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> >; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. I am asking why determining whether something is a "city" is useful in this context, when its meaning is so variable as to be virtually meaningless as a general term? It just shows that there is no consistent basis for this demand for city "protections", if there's any basis at all. Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:46 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > wrote: I guess I don’t understand your comment or I expressed myself very poorly: the word „city“ as such is not a geoname (as far as I know)… With city I refer to what is defined as a city – the “city name” refers to the actual names of the entities considered as cities… Hope this is clearer… Best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> ] Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:42 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > Cc: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> >; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments What is the value in the word "city"? Why does it matter whether a locale is called a "city" or some other thing -- especially if the definitions vary so broadly that using the term as a single classification is meaningless? This shows that deciding that "cities" have "rights" is certainly not based on any standard. This could become an exercise in developing meaninglessness out of meanings. That is no way to build a specification. Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:52 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > wrote: Dear Marita Thanks very much for your feedback. I feel that subsidiarity means that you accept and are respectful of different solutions according to national laws and policies – setting an artificial one size fits all definition of “city” in ICANN is rather risky, difficult, and not respectful of different approaches at the local level. Perhaps this is a very Swiss thought, but one that works when different cultures, traditions and policies are at stake… Btw: I was not intending to make a distinction between city and city name, beyond the intrinsic difference that in national policies and laws you will normally find a definition of “city” in the abstract (e.g. in Switzerland this is linked to size and other statistical elements) and “city name” is the geoname as such, i.e. the question whether a string xyz matches a name of an entity defined as a “city” according to the relevant national law or policy. Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> ] Im Auftrag von Marita Moll Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 13:35 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi Jorge. I just have a thought on #4. It would be nice if deferring to local laws was agreed upon, but would that be considered "fair" if one locality defined city as something that could be rather small but with a unique feature and another locality defined city as something that had to be very large, i.e. certain number of people or certain area? I tossed some of the wikipedia site you sent around the other day in Italian re: definition of cities (my Italian is also non-existant) and here is part of what it says. "Of the title of city, in Italy, you can boast those municipalities that have been awarded with the decree of the King (until 1946) or the provisional head of the state (until 1948) or the president of the Republic, by virtue of their historical importance , artistic, civic or demographic. Many other cities are given the title by virtue of legislative acts of pre-unification states, or they do so for ancient and uninterrupted custom ....." (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titolo_di_citt%C3%A0_in_Italia) I don't think that sort of think applies anywhere in North America. In Canada, it is the provinces that define cities, not the federal state, and I am sure artistic elements aren't part of it. #4 in the list below, which I am addressing, refers to defining a "city name". Is that considered to be an operation different from defining a "city." Can anyone elaborate? Marita On 6/26/2018 12:45 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Greg and all Maybe we may slowly creating some common ground… Yesterday in the cross-community discussion there were ideas (some I proposed myself) such as (1) setting a deadline for reacting to a letter of non-objection request; (2) establishing that application may go forward if there is no reaction by the relevant pubic authority within that set deadline; (3) helping the applicant in determining whether the intended string is a city name or not; this could be done by an advisory body bound to confidentiality; (4) creating greater predictability by deferring to local laws and policies defining what a “city name” is in each jurisdiction… something that in the age of big data should be rather simple… (5) helping the applicant in identifying the relevant public authorities, and in establishing contact with them; (6) establishing mediation or other dispute-resolution procedures when the applicant disagrees with the position taken by the relevant authority… Etc. These are all means to address some of the issues alleged on the functioning of the “non-objection”-letter framework, and to raise predictability and certainty for all parties, without breaking this model that in general (with some limited exceptions) worked well according to the reported data and facts. Hope this may be helpful Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 11:32 An: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Maybe somebody “neutral” could summarize the suggested measures for the treatment of (non-capital) cities? Right now an applicant (for a non-capital city) requires Government support only if there is geo-use intent! * Do we keep it that way, * do we protect important (e.g. sizeable) cities a bit more, * or do we skip the protections completely? Seems these are the 3 choices. In MY view! I would say there are more choices, or at least more variations, based on the type of mechanism used. There are mechanisms that come before the application is filed (e.g., the letter of consent/non-objection), mechanisms that come after the application is filed but during the application process (e.g., objections, and also letters of c/n-o if it's determined you must have one), and mechanisms that come after the TLD is delegated (Compliance issues, Dispute Resolution Procedures). In some of these mechanisms, the "protectable right" is presumed (letter of consent/non-objection) and in others the "protectable right" must be proven (basically, all of the other mechanisms). How these variables could apply to protection of a category of geographic terms is critical. "Protection" could be acceptable with one set of variables and unacceptable with another set of variables. For example, the right to make an objection may be an acceptable protection where a letter of c/n-j is not. If we frame this only as a choice between letters of consent/non-objection or no "protection" at all, the likelihood of reaching consensus drops drastically. We need to add methods of protection to the discussion of whether not protections should be granted in order to have the best chance of reaching consensus. Greg From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:42 AM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Dear WT5 colleagues, Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: " So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: * Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! * In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) * And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!" This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop. Kind regards, Heather Forrest On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> > wrote: Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this. Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)." But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that. If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust. Marita On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….” Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: * We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement * In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”) o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities * All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. * The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): * There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms! * In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! * So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? * Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! * Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? * The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). * As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! * The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! * I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! * The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: * Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! * In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) * And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: <mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: <mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ 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 Group, We are always talking about “Government Support” – and many here share a healthy distain for “Governments” (especially “Federal Governments”). But an applicant for a non-capital city doesn’t need the support by the “federal government” of the respective nation; it is the CITY GOVERNMENT that decides! These are city constituent based city representatives! They know their city best! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 1:27 AM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; gregshatanipc@gmail.com Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments No, I didn’t overlook that. It just transfers the burden to someone else and either makes ICANN the judge of ambiguity or makes ambiguity the rule. And, no, this is not an easy task … I’m glad you think it is … so I invite the Swiss government to do it for the world :0) Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 5:31 PM To: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> ; gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Dear Paul You may overlooked that I suggested that this information may be assembled by ICANN and offered to potential applicants through e.g. an advisory panel – see points (3) and (4) I proposed at the beginning… In the age of big data that should be simple. sorry if I did not express this with absolute clarity… Best Jorge Von: Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2018 16:26 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >; gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments I’m not sure that can work – now an applicant would have to be familiar with the law of 190+ nations to determine which are “cities” and which are not and therefore which need to pre-clear the application and which don’t. ICANN is an international organization. It works because it relies on international standards. If there is an international standard on what defines a city, that’s a plausible ground (though I would disagree with it in substance). The idea that an applicant needs to know Swiss law and Bhutanese law and Kazahk law on defining cities is simply not realistic. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 6:17 PM To: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
That's right -- although in some areas, one might also have to deal with one level up -- which in Canada are the provinces. If a province wanted to change the name of a city, here in Ontario,Canada, the city has to comply. Things are always changing. In 1998, the province forced an amalgamation which created Metro Toronto out of the regional municipality of *Metropolitan Toronto*and its six constituent municipalities. As part of this, East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, York, and the City of *Toronto*(1834) were dissolved by an act of the Government of Ontario. This happens with countries as well of course (USSR), but it will happen much more frequently with cities. That's another reason to go with a size definition with a few other options for smaller states and perhaps some leeway for historical reasons. The larger the city, the more stable the name. I have no evidence of that, but it seems to make sense. Marita On 6/28/2018 10:11 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear Group,
We are always talking about “Government Support” – and many here share a healthy distain for “Governments” (especially “Federal Governments”). But an applicant for a non-capital city doesn’t need the support by the “federal government” of the respective nation; it is the CITY GOVERNMENT that decides! These are city constituent based city representatives! They know their city best!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul Rosenzweig *Sent:* Thursday, June 28, 2018 1:27 AM *To:* Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; gregshatanipc@gmail.com *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
No, I didn’t overlook that. It just transfers the burden to someone else and either makes ICANN the judge of ambiguity or makes ambiguity the rule.
And, no, this is not an easy task … I’m glad you think it is … so I invite the Swiss government to do it for the world :0)
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
*From:*Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 27, 2018 5:31 PM *To:* paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Dear Paul
You may overlooked that I suggested that this information may be assembled by ICANN and offered to potential applicants through e.g. an advisory panel – see points (3) and (4) I proposed at the beginning…
In the age of big data that should be simple.
sorry if I did not express this with absolute clarity…
Best
Jorge
*Von:*Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com] *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2018 16:26 *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>; gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Betreff:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
I’m not sure that can work – now an applicant would have to be familiar with the law of 190+ nations to determine which are “cities” and which are not and therefore which need to pre-clear the application and which don’t.
ICANN is an international organization. It works because it relies on international standards. If there is an international standard on what defines a city, that’s a plausible ground (though I would disagree with it in substance). The idea that an applicant needs to know Swiss law and Bhutanese law and Kazahk law on defining cities is simply not realistic.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
*From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> *On Behalf Of *Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2018 6:17 PM *To:* gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Hi Marita, if someone applied for a Canadian city, they had to solicit the support from the province as well? I assume only from the city Government. I just wanted to point out that the “letter of non-objection” (“Government support”) DOES NOT provide “Governments” (of countries) with “veto rights”. In opposite: Often city Governments are VEHEMENTLY opposed to their federal Governments – e.g. in the birth land of the Internet! Some U.S. cities are even completely denying followership and orders of federal authorities (for example “sanctuary cities” are denying to cooperate with ICE raids). City governments are very local, elected by the local constituents and truly representing the LOCAL interests – often AGAINST the national government! Nobody can claim that we would “empower GAC” (or nation states) when we require a letter of non-objection for city name applications. That’s just not the case – rather the opposite. Now there might be a few totalitarian nations where the central Government might want to weigh in. But those should be few; and that’s a structural problem of THAT nation. But I certainly agree: We need a simply, transparent and fair measure to identify cities that require protections identical to capital cities. Population size is such measure. A mix of absolute and relative to the countries population seems sufficient and fair. If somebody had a database of some 100+ countries, their populations, the biggest cities, and the city populations, and could run a few numbers: that would help us identifying how many cities we would protect! Say if the absolute number was 250,000 inhabitants, and the relative population size 2.5% (of the country’s population): Latvia has 2 Million people, 2.5% equals 50,000 people. That would protect a mere 4 big cities (outside the capital Riga); but ONLY the capital would otherwise make the 250k threshold. Would be cool to see a list compiled from those measures – and maybe run it against a dictionary and a list of important brands (not a TM database – EVERYTHING is trademarked, but TMs aren’t “brands”). My assumption: there is a minimal overlap – neither “real brands” nor generic terms would be exposed to extra burdens! But the cities would be protected from vultures and fake “non-geo use” applications! It would be a simple rule that is easy to understand and easy to apply. Applicants simply look up their string in Wikipedia (DON’T TEACH ME ABOUT WIKIPEDIA), if a city pops up they look up the population size of the city (cities) and the nation(s) it is in – if it meets the criteria they need to talk to the city – or cities in the rare case several make the cut! The same is true if a SMALL city wants to apply but there was a BIG city with identical name: Get their OK and you are fine! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 8:21 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org >> Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments That's right -- although in some areas, one might also have to deal with one level up -- which in Canada are the provinces. If a province wanted to change the name of a city, here in Ontario,Canada, the city has to comply. Things are always changing. In 1998, the province forced an amalgamation which created Metro Toronto out of the regional municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and its six constituent municipalities. As part of this, East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, York, and the City of Toronto (1834) were dissolved by an act of the Government of Ontario. This happens with countries as well of course (USSR), but it will happen much more frequently with cities. That's another reason to go with a size definition with a few other options for smaller states and perhaps some leeway for historical reasons. The larger the city, the more stable the name. I have no evidence of that, but it seems to make sense. Marita On 6/28/2018 10:11 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Group, We are always talking about “Government Support” – and many here share a healthy distain for “Governments” (especially “Federal Governments”). But an applicant for a non-capital city doesn’t need the support by the “federal government” of the respective nation; it is the CITY GOVERNMENT that decides! These are city constituent based city representatives! They know their city best! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 1:27 AM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> ; gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments No, I didn’t overlook that. It just transfers the burden to someone else and either makes ICANN the judge of ambiguity or makes ambiguity the rule. And, no, this is not an easy task … I’m glad you think it is … so I invite the Swiss government to do it for the world :0) Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 5:31 PM To: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> ; gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Dear Paul You may overlooked that I suggested that this information may be assembled by ICANN and offered to potential applicants through e.g. an advisory panel – see points (3) and (4) I proposed at the beginning… In the age of big data that should be simple. sorry if I did not express this with absolute clarity… Best Jorge Von: Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2018 16:26 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >; gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments I’m not sure that can work – now an applicant would have to be familiar with the law of 190+ nations to determine which are “cities” and which are not and therefore which need to pre-clear the application and which don’t. ICANN is an international organization. It works because it relies on international standards. If there is an international standard on what defines a city, that’s a plausible ground (though I would disagree with it in substance). The idea that an applicant needs to know Swiss law and Bhutanese law and Kazahk law on defining cities is simply not realistic. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 6:17 PM To: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments _______________________________________________ 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
In answer to your question, Alexander, would cities in Ontario (under normal circumstances) have to solicit support from the province -- no, I doubt that very much, and I can't see the federal government meddling in there either. I was merely illustrating that things are always in a state of flux -- and whatever system we set up has to take that into account as well. Laws change, cities change, populations move around. Currently, people are exiting large cities in war-torn countries in the Middle East and elsewhere. Populations go down as well as up. So, to your simple, transparent and fair measure to identify cities, I would suggest we keep these things in mind and try to build in some flexibility as well. At least, with a population measure, a list based on credible statistics could maintained in the same way as the country code list is maintained and amended through a policy process as is now the case with changes to country names. Credible databases do exist. The following site *World Population Review* is full of information about city populations by country with data sourced through the U.N. Some historical info as well. worldpopulationreview.com <worldpopulationreview.com/> Marita On 6/28/2018 2:41 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Hi Marita,
if someone applied for a Canadian city, they had to solicit the support from the province as well? I assume only from the city Government. I just wanted to point out that the “letter of non-objection” (“Government support”) DOES NOT provide “Governments” (of countries) with “veto rights”. In opposite: Often city Governments are VEHEMENTLY opposed to their federal Governments – e.g. in the birth land of the Internet! Some U.S. cities are even completely denying followership and orders of federal authorities (for example “sanctuary cities” are denying to cooperate with ICE raids). City governments are very local, elected by the local constituents and truly representing the LOCAL interests – often AGAINST the national government! Nobody can claim that we would “empower GAC” (or nation states) when we require a letter of non-objection for city name applications. That’s just not the case – rather the opposite. Now there might be a few totalitarian nations where the central Government might want to weigh in. But those should be few; and that’s a structural problem of THAT nation.
But I certainly agree: We need a simply, transparent and fair measure to identify cities that require protections identical to capital cities. Population size is such measure. A mix of absolute and relative to the countries population seems sufficient and fair. If somebody had a database of some 100+ countries, their populations, the biggest cities, and the city populations, and could run a few numbers: that would help us identifying how many cities we would protect! Say if the absolute number was 250,000 inhabitants, and the relative population size 2.5% (of the country’s population): Latvia has 2 Million people, 2.5% equals 50,000 people. That would protect a mere 4 big cities (outside the capital Riga); but ONLY the capital would otherwise make the 250k threshold. Would be cool to see a list compiled from those measures – and maybe run it against a dictionary and a list of important brands (not a TM database – EVERYTHING is trademarked, but TMs aren’t “brands”). My assumption: there is a minimal overlap – neither “real brands” nor generic terms would be exposed to extra burdens! But the cities would be protected from vultures and fake “non-geo use” applications! It would be a simple rule that is easy to understand and easy to apply. Applicants simply look up their string in Wikipedia (DON’T TEACH ME ABOUT WIKIPEDIA), if a city pops up they look up the population size of the city (cities) and the nation(s) it is in – if it meets the criteria they need to talk to the city – or cities in the rare case several make the cut! The same is true if a SMALL city wants to apply but there was a BIG city with identical name: Get their OK and you are fine!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Marita Moll *Sent:* Thursday, June 28, 2018 8:21 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org >> Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
That's right -- although in some areas, one might also have to deal with one level up -- which in Canada are the provinces. If a province wanted to change the name of a city, here in Ontario,Canada, the city has to comply. Things are always changing. In 1998, the province forced an amalgamation which created Metro Toronto out of the regional municipality of *Metropolitan Toronto* and its six constituent municipalities. As part of this, East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, York, and the City of *Toronto* (1834) were dissolved by an act of the Government of Ontario.
This happens with countries as well of course (USSR), but it will happen much more frequently with cities. That's another reason to go with a size definition with a few other options for smaller states and perhaps some leeway for historical reasons. The larger the city, the more stable the name. I have no evidence of that, but it seems to make sense.
Marita
On 6/28/2018 10:11 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear Group,
We are always talking about “Government Support” – and many here share a healthy distain for “Governments” (especially “Federal Governments”). But an applicant for a non-capital city doesn’t need the support by the “federal government” of the respective nation; it is the CITY GOVERNMENT that decides! These are city constituent based city representatives! They know their city best!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul Rosenzweig *Sent:* Thursday, June 28, 2018 1:27 AM *To:* Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
No, I didn’t overlook that. It just transfers the burden to someone else and either makes ICANN the judge of ambiguity or makes ambiguity the rule.
And, no, this is not an easy task … I’m glad you think it is … so I invite the Swiss government to do it for the world :0)
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
*From:*Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 27, 2018 5:31 PM *To:* paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Dear Paul
You may overlooked that I suggested that this information may be assembled by ICANN and offered to potential applicants through e.g. an advisory panel – see points (3) and (4) I proposed at the beginning…
In the age of big data that should be simple.
sorry if I did not express this with absolute clarity…
Best
Jorge
*Von:*Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com] *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2018 16:26 *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>; gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Betreff:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
I’m not sure that can work – now an applicant would have to be familiar with the law of 190+ nations to determine which are “cities” and which are not and therefore which need to pre-clear the application and which don’t.
ICANN is an international organization. It works because it relies on international standards. If there is an international standard on what defines a city, that’s a plausible ground (though I would disagree with it in substance). The idea that an applicant needs to know Swiss law and Bhutanese law and Kazahk law on defining cities is simply not realistic.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
*From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> *On Behalf Of *Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2018 6:17 PM *To:* gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
_______________________________________________
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
Assuming for sake of discussion that a population based list of "cities" is useful, identifying a "credible" and accurate database for all the "cities" of the world should not be assumed to be easy. The database cited, http://worldpopulationreview.com/, does not bear strong evidence of "credibility." There is no informatoin about the person or entity who runs it. A WHOIS search on ICANN's WHOIS page revealed only "ICANN received a Timeout while querying the Registry or Registrar’s WHOIS Server." Using their address to look at Google StreetView shows a small office park of one-story buildiings in Walnut, California, a suburb of Los Angeles (also the name of a nut, a tree and a type of wood popular in cabinetry). There is no indication that the entity or person is there. The privacy policy reveals that someone named Shane has an email address there. The Terms may be "lifted" from another site, as they mention Pennsylvania as the choice of law for the terms, even though the entity has a California address. (Unlike Delaware or New York, Pennsylvania is not a likely choice of law for a non-resident.) The list of cities found at the link "US Cities" on the home page is "only" 100 cities long, although the introduction notes: The United States <http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/united-states-population/> Census designates populated regions of the country as 'incorporated places.' An incorporated place in the United States includes cities, towns, villages and municipalities, among other designations. As of 2015, there are over 300 incorporated places in the United States that have a population that exceeds 100,000, which is a pretty sizable increase over the 285 recorded in 2012. <http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2012/08/numbe...> I note that this list is missing the "town" of Hempstead, NY, population 700,000+, even though it goes down almost to 200,000. The criteria of the list this list came from is unknown; presumably, their criteria excluded Hempstead, NY. How many other errors there are I do not know.
From the United States page, there is a link to a different list of city pages, that goes down to 90,000 (still no Hempstead). This list includes each of the fie boroughs of New York City, which are just parts of New York City, not "cities" at all. It also lists some New York City neighborhoods like Harlem and East Flatbush, and L.A. neighborhoods like Koreatown, which are even less defined. It does not however list Greenwich Village, my neighborhood, even though multiple sources place it's population at 160,000+, well over the cut-off for the list.
I could go on but I won't. Greg On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
In answer to your question, Alexander, would cities in Ontario (under normal circumstances) have to solicit support from the province -- no, I doubt that very much, and I can't see the federal government meddling in there either. I was merely illustrating that things are always in a state of flux -- and whatever system we set up has to take that into account as well. Laws change, cities change, populations move around. Currently, people are exiting large cities in war-torn countries in the Middle East and elsewhere. Populations go down as well as up.
So, to your simple, transparent and fair measure to identify cities, I would suggest we keep these things in mind and try to build in some flexibility as well. At least, with a population measure, a list based on credible statistics could maintained in the same way as the country code list is maintained and amended through a policy process as is now the case with changes to country names.
Credible databases do exist. The following site *World Population Review* is full of information about city populations by country with data sourced through the U.N. Some historical info as well.
worldpopulationreview.com
Marita
On 6/28/2018 2:41 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Hi Marita,
if someone applied for a Canadian city, they had to solicit the support from the province as well? I assume only from the city Government. I just wanted to point out that the “letter of non-objection” (“Government support”) DOES NOT provide “Governments” (of countries) with “veto rights”. In opposite: Often city Governments are VEHEMENTLY opposed to their federal Governments – e.g. in the birth land of the Internet! Some U.S. cities are even completely denying followership and orders of federal authorities (for example “sanctuary cities” are denying to cooperate with ICE raids). City governments are very local, elected by the local constituents and truly representing the LOCAL interests – often AGAINST the national government! Nobody can claim that we would “empower GAC” (or nation states) when we require a letter of non-objection for city name applications. That’s just not the case – rather the opposite. Now there might be a few totalitarian nations where the central Government might want to weigh in. But those should be few; and that’s a structural problem of THAT nation.
But I certainly agree: We need a simply, transparent and fair measure to identify cities that require protections identical to capital cities. Population size is such measure. A mix of absolute and relative to the countries population seems sufficient and fair. If somebody had a database of some 100+ countries, their populations, the biggest cities, and the city populations, and could run a few numbers: that would help us identifying how many cities we would protect! Say if the absolute number was 250,000 inhabitants, and the relative population size 2.5% (of the country’s population): Latvia has 2 Million people, 2.5% equals 50,000 people. That would protect a mere 4 big cities (outside the capital Riga); but ONLY the capital would otherwise make the 250k threshold. Would be cool to see a list compiled from those measures – and maybe run it against a dictionary and a list of important brands (not a TM database – EVERYTHING is trademarked, but TMs aren’t “brands”). My assumption: there is a minimal overlap – neither “real brands” nor generic terms would be exposed to extra burdens! But the cities would be protected from vultures and fake “non-geo use” applications! It would be a simple rule that is easy to understand and easy to apply. Applicants simply look up their string in Wikipedia (DON’T TEACH ME ABOUT WIKIPEDIA), if a city pops up they look up the population size of the city (cities) and the nation(s) it is in – if it meets the criteria they need to talk to the city – or cities in the rare case several make the cut! The same is true if a SMALL city wants to apply but there was a BIG city with identical name: Get their OK and you are fine!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Marita Moll *Sent:* Thursday, June 28, 2018 8:21 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org >> Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
That's right -- although in some areas, one might also have to deal with one level up -- which in Canada are the provinces. If a province wanted to change the name of a city, here in Ontario,Canada, the city has to comply. Things are always changing. In 1998, the province forced an amalgamation which created Metro Toronto out of the regional municipality of *Metropolitan Toronto* and its six constituent municipalities. As part of this, East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, York, and the City of *Toronto* (1834) were dissolved by an act of the Government of Ontario.
This happens with countries as well of course (USSR), but it will happen much more frequently with cities. That's another reason to go with a size definition with a few other options for smaller states and perhaps some leeway for historical reasons. The larger the city, the more stable the name. I have no evidence of that, but it seems to make sense.
Marita
On 6/28/2018 10:11 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear Group,
We are always talking about “Government Support” – and many here share a healthy distain for “Governments” (especially “Federal Governments”). But an applicant for a non-capital city doesn’t need the support by the “federal government” of the respective nation; it is the CITY GOVERNMENT that decides! These are city constituent based city representatives! They know their city best!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Paul Rosenzweig *Sent:* Thursday, June 28, 2018 1:27 AM *To:* Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; gregshatanipc@gmail.com *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
No, I didn’t overlook that. It just transfers the burden to someone else and either makes ICANN the judge of ambiguity or makes ambiguity the rule.
And, no, this is not an easy task … I’m glad you think it is … so I invite the Swiss government to do it for the world :0)
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search= 0x9A830097CA066684
*From:* Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 27, 2018 5:31 PM *To:* paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; gregshatanipc@gmail.com *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Dear Paul
You may overlooked that I suggested that this information may be assembled by ICANN and offered to potential applicants through e.g. an advisory panel – see points (3) and (4) I proposed at the beginning…
In the age of big data that should be simple.
sorry if I did not express this with absolute clarity…
Best
Jorge
*Von:* Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>] *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2018 16:26 *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; gregshatanipc@gmail.com *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Betreff:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
I’m not sure that can work – now an applicant would have to be familiar with the law of 190+ nations to determine which are “cities” and which are not and therefore which need to pre-clear the application and which don’t.
ICANN is an international organization. It works because it relies on international standards. If there is an international standard on what defines a city, that’s a plausible ground (though I would disagree with it in substance). The idea that an applicant needs to know Swiss law and Bhutanese law and Kazahk law on defining cities is simply not realistic.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2018 6:17 PM *To:* gregshatanipc@gmail.com *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://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
Thanks Greg, for doing the research that I did not do. I was just relying on the following footnote on the first page 1. World Population Prospects (2017 Revision) <https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/>- United Nations population estimates and projections. Upon checking this source, however, I see that there is a huge database of info that worldpopulationreview.com must have used to compile the info they present on their site -- who knows why they do this, it is quite a bit of work. There are various sites that use this UN info -- I guess we could maybe consider it a valid source. Saying that, I am absolutely not an expert in this kind of data gathering. Marita On 6/28/2018 7:01 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Assuming for sake of discussion that a population based list of "cities" is useful, identifying a "credible" and accurate database for all the "cities" of the world should not be assumed to be easy. The database cited, http://worldpopulationreview.com/, does not bear strong evidence of "credibility." There is no informatoin about the person or entity who runs it. A WHOIS search on ICANN's WHOIS page revealed only "ICANN received a Timeout while querying the Registry or Registrar’s WHOIS Server." Using their address to look at Google StreetView shows a small office park of one-story buildiings in Walnut, California, a suburb of Los Angeles (also the name of a nut, a tree and a type of wood popular in cabinetry). There is no indication that the entity or person is there. The privacy policy reveals that someone named Shane has an email address there. The Terms may be "lifted" from another site, as they mention Pennsylvania as the choice of law for the terms, even though the entity has a California address. (Unlike Delaware or New York, Pennsylvania is not a likely choice of law for a non-resident.)
The list of cities found at the link "US Cities" on the home page is "only" 100 cities long, although the introduction notes: TheUnited States <http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/united-states-population/>Census designates populated regions of the country as 'incorporated places.' An incorporated place in the United States includes cities, towns, villages and municipalities, among other designations. As of 2015, there are over 300 incorporated places in the United States that have a population that exceeds 100,000, which is a pretty sizable increase overthe 285 recorded in 2012. <http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2012/08/numbe...>
I note that this list is missing the "town" of Hempstead, NY, population 700,000+, even though it goes down almost to 200,000. The criteria of the list this list came from is unknown; presumably, their criteria excluded Hempstead, NY. How many other errors there are I do not know.
From the United States page, there is a link to a different list of city pages, that goes down to 90,000 (still no Hempstead). This list includes each of the fie boroughs of New York City, which are just parts of New York City, not "cities" at all. It also lists some New York City neighborhoods like Harlem and East Flatbush, and L.A. neighborhoods like Koreatown, which are even less defined. It does not however list Greenwich Village, my neighborhood, even though multiple sources place it's population at 160,000+, well over the cut-off for the list.
I could go on but I won't.
Greg
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote:
In answer to your question, Alexander, would cities in Ontario (under normal circumstances) have to solicit support from the province -- no, I doubt that very much, and I can't see the federal government meddling in there either. I was merely illustrating that things are always in a state of flux -- and whatever system we set up has to take that into account as well. Laws change, cities change, populations move around. Currently, people are exiting large cities in war-torn countries in the Middle East and elsewhere. Populations go down as well as up.
So, to your simple, transparent and fair measure to identify cities, I would suggest we keep these things in mind and try to build in some flexibility as well. At least, with a population measure, a list based on credible statistics could maintained in the same way as the country code list is maintained and amended through a policy process as is now the case with changes to country names.
Credible databases do exist. The following site *World Population Review* is full of information about city populations by country with data sourced through the U.N. Some historical info as well.
worldpopulationreview.com <http://worldpopulationreview.com/>
Marita
On 6/28/2018 2:41 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Hi Marita,
if someone applied for a Canadian city, they had to solicit the support from the province as well? I assume only from the city Government. I just wanted to point out that the “letter of non-objection” (“Government support”) DOES NOT provide “Governments” (of countries) with “veto rights”. In opposite: Often city Governments are VEHEMENTLY opposed to their federal Governments – e.g. in the birth land of the Internet! Some U.S. cities are even completely denying followership and orders of federal authorities (for example “sanctuary cities” are denying to cooperate with ICE raids). City governments are very local, elected by the local constituents and truly representing the LOCAL interests – often AGAINST the national government! Nobody can claim that we would “empower GAC” (or nation states) when we require a letter of non-objection for city name applications. That’s just not the case – rather the opposite. Now there might be a few totalitarian nations where the central Government might want to weigh in. But those should be few; and that’s a structural problem of THAT nation.
But I certainly agree: We need a simply, transparent and fair measure to identify cities that require protections identical to capital cities. Population size is such measure. A mix of absolute and relative to the countries population seems sufficient and fair. If somebody had a database of some 100+ countries, their populations, the biggest cities, and the city populations, and could run a few numbers: that would help us identifying how many cities we would protect! Say if the absolute number was 250,000 inhabitants, and the relative population size 2.5% (of the country’s population): Latvia has 2 Million people, 2.5% equals 50,000 people. That would protect a mere 4 big cities (outside the capital Riga); but ONLY the capital would otherwise make the 250k threshold. Would be cool to see a list compiled from those measures – and maybe run it against a dictionary and a list of important brands (not a TM database – EVERYTHING is trademarked, but TMs aren’t “brands”). My assumption: there is a minimal overlap – neither “real brands” nor generic terms would be exposed to extra burdens! But the cities would be protected from vultures and fake “non-geo use” applications! It would be a simple rule that is easy to understand and easy to apply. Applicants simply look up their string in Wikipedia (DON’T TEACH ME ABOUT WIKIPEDIA), if a city pops up they look up the population size of the city (cities) and the nation(s) it is in – if it meets the criteria they need to talk to the city – or cities in the rare case several make the cut! The same is true if a SMALL city wants to apply but there was a BIG city with identical name: Get their OK and you are fine!
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 *Marita Moll *Sent:* Thursday, June 28, 2018 8:21 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >> Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
That's right -- although in some areas, one might also have to deal with one level up -- which in Canada are the provinces. If a province wanted to change the name of a city, here in Ontario,Canada, the city has to comply. Things are always changing. In 1998, the province forced an amalgamation which created Metro Toronto out of the regional municipality of *Metropolitan Toronto* and its six constituent municipalities. As part of this, East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, York, and the City of *Toronto* (1834) were dissolved by an act of the Government of Ontario.
This happens with countries as well of course (USSR), but it will happen much more frequently with cities. That's another reason to go with a size definition with a few other options for smaller states and perhaps some leeway for historical reasons. The larger the city, the more stable the name. I have no evidence of that, but it seems to make sense.
Marita
On 6/28/2018 10:11 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear Group,
We are always talking about “Government Support” – and many here share a healthy distain for “Governments” (especially “Federal Governments”). But an applicant for a non-capital city doesn’t need the support by the “federal government” of the respective nation; it is the CITY GOVERNMENT that decides! These are city constituent based city representatives! They know their city best!
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 *Paul Rosenzweig *Sent:* Thursday, June 28, 2018 1:27 AM *To:* Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
No, I didn’t overlook that. It just transfers the burden to someone else and either makes ICANN the judge of ambiguity or makes ambiguity the rule.
And, no, this is not an easy task … I’m glad you think it is … so I invite the Swiss government to do it for the world :0)
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684>
*From:*Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 27, 2018 5:31 PM *To:* paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Dear Paul
You may overlooked that I suggested that this information may be assembled by ICANN and offered to potential applicants through e.g. an advisory panel – see points (3) and (4) I proposed at the beginning…
In the age of big data that should be simple.
sorry if I did not express this with absolute clarity…
Best
Jorge
*Von:*Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>] *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2018 16:26 *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>; gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Betreff:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
I’m not sure that can work – now an applicant would have to be familiar with the law of 190+ nations to determine which are “cities” and which are not and therefore which need to pre-clear the application and which don’t.
ICANN is an international organization. It works because it relies on international standards. If there is an international standard on what defines a city, that’s a plausible ground (though I would disagree with it in substance). The idea that an applicant needs to know Swiss law and Bhutanese law and Kazahk law on defining cities is simply not realistic.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
*From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> *On Behalf Of *Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2018 6:17 PM *To:* gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <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>
Hi Greg, which is precisely why we should probably not force ICANN to compile “lists”, I agree with you. We make the definition, applicants check their string online, if a place with identical name pops up: the applicant has to do it’s research! And yes: While a simple rule probably catches 99.9% of all cases – there will be always exceptions, like the this “town” of Hempstead (770k people). We might include some of these outriggers by defining “city” accordingly. So regardless how a place labels herself (e.g. “town”) when it is matching the city definition; it is counted as city in regard to the AGB. We yet haven’t come up with a sufficient definition of “city” – any suggestions by anybody? We have to have a relatively SIMPLE rule. We do not want to overprotect, and do not want to have too many entities unprotected. But a set of rules that will serve BOTH narratives will be convoluted and complicated. And the alternative would be: No protections at all! So better a simple rule that covers 99.9% of all cases! We have to be REALISTIC. And remember: We are talking about a specific category here: the category of non-capital CITIES! These are so important that they had their own category in the past, and should keep their own category! We just have to evaluate whether the most important entities of the category “non-capital cities” should be deemed equally important as capitals (hence no “non-geo use” clause). Boroughs aren’t cities. If we want to protect non-city geo entities: this has to be in ANOTHER category. We can’t continue to conflate categories – we run circles otherwise. 80% of people in for example the U.S. and 75% in Europe live in “cities”. This ultra-important category deserves its own policies – any convolution should be rejected. My suggestion: * Keep the city category of the 2012 AGB * Have a better definition of what a city is! * Elevate those cities that equal small countries or ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national subdivisions in population size into the same category as capital cities * Define a fair and easy to compile “threshold” for these “big cities”. Naturally population size comes to mind. Absolute or relative to the country population or a combination If we do not extra protect “big cities” then we risk that entities with huge populations falling victim to fraudulent applications – and hundreds of thousands if not millions of people are deprived of their freedom of expression. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 2:01 AM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Assuming for sake of discussion that a population based list of "cities" is useful, identifying a "credible" and accurate database for all the "cities" of the world should not be assumed to be easy. The database cited, http://worldpopulationreview.com/, does not bear strong evidence of "credibility." There is no informatoin about the person or entity who runs it. A WHOIS search on ICANN's WHOIS page revealed only "ICANN received a Timeout while querying the Registry or Registrar’s WHOIS Server." Using their address to look at Google StreetView shows a small office park of one-story buildiings in Walnut, California, a suburb of Los Angeles (also the name of a nut, a tree and a type of wood popular in cabinetry). There is no indication that the entity or person is there. The privacy policy reveals that someone named Shane has an email address there. The Terms may be "lifted" from another site, as they mention Pennsylvania as the choice of law for the terms, even though the entity has a California address. (Unlike Delaware or New York, Pennsylvania is not a likely choice of law for a non-resident.) The list of cities found at the link "US Cities" on the home page is "only" 100 cities long, although the introduction notes: The <http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/united-states-population/> United States Census designates populated regions of the country as 'incorporated places.' An incorporated place in the United States includes cities, towns, villages and municipalities, among other designations. As of 2015, there are over 300 incorporated places in the United States that have a population that exceeds 100,000, which is a pretty sizable increase over <http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2012/08/numbe...> the 285 recorded in 2012. I note that this list is missing the "town" of Hempstead, NY, population 700,000+, even though it goes down almost to 200,000. The criteria of the list this list came from is unknown; presumably, their criteria excluded Hempstead, NY. How many other errors there are I do not know.
From the United States page, there is a link to a different list of city pages, that goes down to 90,000 (still no Hempstead). This list includes each of the fie boroughs of New York City, which are just parts of New York City, not "cities" at all. It also lists some New York City neighborhoods like Harlem and East Flatbush, and L.A. neighborhoods like Koreatown, which are even less defined. It does not however list Greenwich Village, my neighborhood, even though multiple sources place it's population at 160,000+, well over the cut-off for the list.
I could go on but I won't. Greg On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> > wrote: In answer to your question, Alexander, would cities in Ontario (under normal circumstances) have to solicit support from the province -- no, I doubt that very much, and I can't see the federal government meddling in there either. I was merely illustrating that things are always in a state of flux -- and whatever system we set up has to take that into account as well. Laws change, cities change, populations move around. Currently, people are exiting large cities in war-torn countries in the Middle East and elsewhere. Populations go down as well as up. So, to your simple, transparent and fair measure to identify cities, I would suggest we keep these things in mind and try to build in some flexibility as well. At least, with a population measure, a list based on credible statistics could maintained in the same way as the country code list is maintained and amended through a policy process as is now the case with changes to country names. Credible databases do exist. The following site World Population Review is full of information about city populations by country with data sourced through the U.N. Some historical info as well. worldpopulationreview.com <http://worldpopulationreview.com/> Marita On 6/28/2018 2:41 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Hi Marita, if someone applied for a Canadian city, they had to solicit the support from the province as well? I assume only from the city Government. I just wanted to point out that the “letter of non-objection” (“Government support”) DOES NOT provide “Governments” (of countries) with “veto rights”. In opposite: Often city Governments are VEHEMENTLY opposed to their federal Governments – e.g. in the birth land of the Internet! Some U.S. cities are even completely denying followership and orders of federal authorities (for example “sanctuary cities” are denying to cooperate with ICE raids). City governments are very local, elected by the local constituents and truly representing the LOCAL interests – often AGAINST the national government! Nobody can claim that we would “empower GAC” (or nation states) when we require a letter of non-objection for city name applications. That’s just not the case – rather the opposite. Now there might be a few totalitarian nations where the central Government might want to weigh in. But those should be few; and that’s a structural problem of THAT nation. But I certainly agree: We need a simply, transparent and fair measure to identify cities that require protections identical to capital cities. Population size is such measure. A mix of absolute and relative to the countries population seems sufficient and fair. If somebody had a database of some 100+ countries, their populations, the biggest cities, and the city populations, and could run a few numbers: that would help us identifying how many cities we would protect! Say if the absolute number was 250,000 inhabitants, and the relative population size 2.5% (of the country’s population): Latvia has 2 Million people, 2.5% equals 50,000 people. That would protect a mere 4 big cities (outside the capital Riga); but ONLY the capital would otherwise make the 250k threshold. Would be cool to see a list compiled from those measures – and maybe run it against a dictionary and a list of important brands (not a TM database – EVERYTHING is trademarked, but TMs aren’t “brands”). My assumption: there is a minimal overlap – neither “real brands” nor generic terms would be exposed to extra burdens! But the cities would be protected from vultures and fake “non-geo use” applications! It would be a simple rule that is easy to understand and easy to apply. Applicants simply look up their string in Wikipedia (DON’T TEACH ME ABOUT WIKIPEDIA), if a city pops up they look up the population size of the city (cities) and the nation(s) it is in – if it meets the criteria they need to talk to the city – or cities in the rare case several make the cut! The same is true if a SMALL city wants to apply but there was a BIG city with identical name: Get their OK and you are fine! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 8:21 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >> Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments That's right -- although in some areas, one might also have to deal with one level up -- which in Canada are the provinces. If a province wanted to change the name of a city, here in Ontario,Canada, the city has to comply. Things are always changing. In 1998, the province forced an amalgamation which created Metro Toronto out of the regional municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and its six constituent municipalities. As part of this, East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, York, and the City of Toronto (1834) were dissolved by an act of the Government of Ontario. This happens with countries as well of course (USSR), but it will happen much more frequently with cities. That's another reason to go with a size definition with a few other options for smaller states and perhaps some leeway for historical reasons. The larger the city, the more stable the name. I have no evidence of that, but it seems to make sense. Marita On 6/28/2018 10:11 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Group, We are always talking about “Government Support” – and many here share a healthy distain for “Governments” (especially “Federal Governments”). But an applicant for a non-capital city doesn’t need the support by the “federal government” of the respective nation; it is the CITY GOVERNMENT that decides! These are city constituent based city representatives! They know their city best! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 1:27 AM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> ; gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments No, I didn’t overlook that. It just transfers the burden to someone else and either makes ICANN the judge of ambiguity or makes ambiguity the rule. And, no, this is not an easy task … I’m glad you think it is … so I invite the Swiss government to do it for the world :0) Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 5:31 PM To: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> ; gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Dear Paul You may overlooked that I suggested that this information may be assembled by ICANN and offered to potential applicants through e.g. an advisory panel – see points (3) and (4) I proposed at the beginning… In the age of big data that should be simple. sorry if I did not express this with absolute clarity… Best Jorge Von: Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2018 16:26 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >; gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments I’m not sure that can work – now an applicant would have to be familiar with the law of 190+ nations to determine which are “cities” and which are not and therefore which need to pre-clear the application and which don’t. ICANN is an international organization. It works because it relies on international standards. If there is an international standard on what defines a city, that’s a plausible ground (though I would disagree with it in substance). The idea that an applicant needs to know Swiss law and Bhutanese law and Kazahk law on defining cities is simply not realistic. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 6:17 PM To: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
I repeatedly see this claim made In the age of big data that should be simple. [Finding Cities geo names etc.] Any facts to back this up? jaap
Hello, I'm sure there is a lot of big data resources available. Below are a few datasets that I hope provide some insight into what is available. * GNIS (Geographic Names Information Systems) has a list of ~250k names along with a some features. https://hifld-geoplatform.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/c19bfaccfc7c473d861db bea1ce7aff0_0/data?orderBy=state_alpha <https://hifld-geoplatform.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/c19bfaccfc7c473d861d bbea1ce7aff0_0/data?orderBy=state_alpha&page=14> &page=14 * Geonames is another resource http://www.geonames.org/ * The UN looks like they also have a geospatial resource http://un-ggim-europe.org/content/wg-a-core-data with a paper at http://un-ggim-europe.org/sites/default/files/UN-GGIM-Europe_WGA_Recommandat ion_Content-GN-v1.0.pdf "This document aims to help decision makers (from governments, data producers, national coordination bodies, etc.) to define their policy regarding the improvement of existing data and production of new geospatial data. It addresses digital data". Big data is also used to create a lot of mapping functionality as another resource i.e. Google maps. If there is a list of some requirements/ideas that might be useful, I'm happy to help in finding a dataset and if needed, putting the data into a useable format so it can be reviewed to see it is fits our purposes. Cheers, Christa -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jaap Akkerhuis Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 1:55 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] (no subject) I repeatedly see this claim made In the age of big data that should be simple. [Finding Cities geo names etc.] Any facts to back this up? jaap _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks, Christa Kind regards Annebeth 28. jun. 2018 kl. 13:10 skrev Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>: Hello, I'm sure there is a lot of big data resources available. Below are a few datasets that I hope provide some insight into what is available. * GNIS (Geographic Names Information Systems) has a list of ~250k names along with a some features. https://hifld-geoplatform.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/c19bfaccfc7c473d861db... * Geonames is another resource http://www.geonames.org/ * The UN looks like they also have a geospatial resource http://un-ggim-europe.org/content/wg-a-core-data with a paper at http://un-ggim-europe.org/sites/default/files/UN-GGIM-Europe_WGA_Recommandat... "This document aims to help decision makers (from governments, data producers, national coordination bodies, etc.) to define their policy regarding the improvement of existing data and production of new geospatial data. It addresses digital data". Big data is also used to create a lot of mapping functionality as another resource i.e. Google maps. If there is a list of some requirements/ideas that might be useful, I’m happy to help in finding a dataset and if needed, putting the data into a useable format so it can be reviewed to see it is fits our purposes. Cheers, Christa -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jaap Akkerhuis Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 1:55 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] (no subject) I repeatedly see this claim made In the age of big data that should be simple. [Finding Cities geo names etc.] Any facts to back this up? jaap _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Hi All, let me add the link of the city list which has been mentioned earlier in our meeting today: United Nations - Department of Economic and Social Affairs - Population of capital cities and cities of 100,000 or more inhabitants (data from 2015) - List of 3,721 cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dyb2015/Table08.xls Best Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Annebeth Lange Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Juni 2018 20:14 An: Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] (no subject) Thanks, Christa Kind regards Annebeth 28. jun. 2018 kl. 13:10 skrev Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>: Hello, I'm sure there is a lot of big data resources available. Below are a few datasets that I hope provide some insight into what is available. * GNIS (Geographic Names Information Systems) has a list of ~250k names along with a some features. https://hifld-geoplatform.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/c19bfaccfc7c473d861db... * Geonames is another resource http://www.geonames.org/ * The UN looks like they also have a geospatial resource http://un-ggim-europe.org/content/wg-a-core-data with a paper at http://un-ggim-europe.org/sites/default/files/UN-GGIM-Europe_WGA_Recommandat... "This document aims to help decision makers (from governments, data producers, national coordination bodies, etc.) to define their policy regarding the improvement of existing data and production of new geospatial data. It addresses digital data". Big data is also used to create a lot of mapping functionality as another resource i.e. Google maps. If there is a list of some requirements/ideas that might be useful, I’m happy to help in finding a dataset and if needed, putting the data into a useable format so it can be reviewed to see it is fits our purposes. Cheers, Christa -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jaap Akkerhuis Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 1:55 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] (no subject) I repeatedly see this claim made In the age of big data that should be simple. [Finding Cities geo names etc.] Any facts to back this up? jaap _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks. This is great. In the end, if we agree to go this way -- i.e. setting aside some cities according to an agreed upon set of characteristics -- we need to find a credible list to work from. In addition to what you have posted here, we might also be able to use this list of large cities http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/urbanizati... <http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/urbanization/the_worlds_cities_in_2016_data_booklet.pdf>(which is derived from a larger database) and World Population Sources https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/ Marita On 6/28/2018 2:09 PM, Christa Taylor wrote:
Hello,
I'm sure there is a lot of big data resources available. Below are a few datasets that I hope provide some insight into what is available.
* GNIS (Geographic Names Information Systems) has a list of ~250k names along with a some features. https://hifld-geoplatform.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/c19bfaccfc7c473d861db...
* Geonames is another resource http://www.geonames.org/
* The UN looks like they also have a geospatial resource http://un-ggim-europe.org/content/wg-a-core-data with a paper at http://un-ggim-europe.org/sites/default/files/UN-GGIM-Europe_WGA_Recommandat...
/"This document aims to help decision makers (from governments, data producers, national coordination bodies, etc.) to define their policy regarding the improvement of existing data and production of new geospatial data. It addresses digital data"./
//
Big data is also used to create a lot of mapping functionality as another resource i.e. Google maps.//
//
If there is a list of some requirements/ideas that might be useful, I’m happy to help in finding a dataset and if needed, putting the data into a useable format so it can be reviewed to see it is fits our purposes.
Cheers,
Christa
-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jaap Akkerhuis Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 1:55 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] (no subject)
I repeatedly see this claim made
In the age of big data that should be simple. [Finding Cities geo names etc.]
Any facts to back this up?
jaap
_______________________________________________
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 Everyone, Maybe we can look at several definitions from around the world (not everyone's - just a reasonable recognized few) and, based on those, come to our own definition of a city for the purposes of policy. It's obvious that we'll never be able to have a fully agreeable global standard for what a city is, but we can say that "for the purposes of a geographic TLD application, we will define a "city" as follows:..." Then here, list measurable criteria that we can agree upon. - Population Size? - Local Legal Status - is it recognized according to that jurisdiction? - Does it appear on a Rand Mcnally map (I'm being facetious on this one but maybe there is some global standard map we can use for this criteria - at least it's definitive and shows reasonable best efforts on our part to create a usable policy )? I'll stop there because I'd prefer that there be less rather than more criteria. If we can agree on this during our specific discussion of cities, then maybe we can port this method over to any other types of geo-entities we decide need treatment under the policy Thanks, Joe Alagna | I suppose now that I've become a member, I should try to help in the constructive process of coming to agreement. I'm sorry if my last two posts seemed more like random rants. I just kind of threw up my mind after a long period of only watching. On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 2:06 PM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Well, cities are there. Cities have names. The public authorities and the populations of such cities care about their names, and the former have responsibilities, interests and, in some jurisdictions at least, rights on those identifiers.
But what is considered as a city is different from country to country.
So deferring to local laws and policies on what is considered in each case as a city is respectful of the sensitivities and increases predictability and certainty for all.
I feel that some deference to subsidiarity is quite a healthy exercise – in the end the fact that an entity is considered a city in a given country reflects that such identity as a city is relevant in that country.
e.g. in Switzerland we have specific criteria on what we consider a „city“ – we would rather not want to get that definition imposed on us…
best
Jorge
*Von:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:52 *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Cc:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. I am asking why determining whether something is a "city" is useful in this context, when its meaning is so variable as to be virtually meaningless as a general term? It just shows that there is no consistent basis for this demand for city "protections", if there's any basis at all.
Greg
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:46 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
I guess I don’t understand your comment or I expressed myself very poorly: the word „city“ as such is not a geoname (as far as I know)…
With city I refer to what is defined as a city – the “city name” refers to the actual names of the entities considered as cities…
Hope this is clearer…
Best
Jorge
*Von:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 15:42 *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Cc:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
*Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
What is the value in the word "city"? Why does it matter whether a locale is called a "city" or some other thing -- especially if the definitions vary so broadly that using the term as a single classification is meaningless? This shows that deciding that "cities" have "rights" is certainly not based on any standard. This could become an exercise in developing meaninglessness out of meanings. That is no way to build a specification.
Greg
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:52 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Marita
Thanks very much for your feedback. I feel that subsidiarity means that you accept and are respectful of different solutions according to national laws and policies – setting an artificial one size fits all definition of “city” in ICANN is rather risky, difficult, and not respectful of different approaches at the local level. Perhaps this is a very Swiss thought, but one that works when different cultures, traditions and policies are at stake…
Btw: I was not intending to make a distinction between city and city name, beyond the intrinsic difference that in national policies and laws you will normally find a definition of “city” in the abstract (e.g. in Switzerland this is linked to size and other statistical elements) and “city name” is the geoname as such, i.e. the question whether a string xyz matches a name of an entity defined as a “city” according to the relevant national law or policy.
Best
Jorge
*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Marita Moll *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 13:35 *An:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
*Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi Jorge. I just have a thought on #4.
It would be nice if deferring to local laws was agreed upon, but would that be considered "fair" if one locality defined city as something that could be rather small but with a unique feature and another locality defined city as something that had to be very large, i.e. certain number of people or certain area? I tossed some of the wikipedia site you sent around the other day in Italian re: definition of cities (my Italian is also non-existant) and here is part of what it says.
"Of the title of city, in Italy, you can boast those municipalities that have been awarded with the decree of the King (until 1946) or the provisional head of the state (until 1948) or the president of the Republic, by virtue of their historical importance , artistic, civic or demographic. Many other cities are given the title by virtue of legislative acts of pre-unification states, or they do so for ancient and uninterrupted custom ....." ( https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titolo_di_citt%C3%A0_in_Italia)
I don't think that sort of think applies anywhere in North America. In Canada, it is the provinces that define cities, not the federal state, and I am sure artistic elements aren't part of it.
#4 in the list below, which I am addressing, refers to defining a "city name". Is that considered to be an operation different from defining a "city." Can anyone elaborate?
Marita
On 6/26/2018 12:45 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear Greg and all
Maybe we may slowly creating some common ground…
Yesterday in the cross-community discussion there were ideas (some I proposed myself) such as
(1) setting a deadline for reacting to a letter of non-objection request;
(2) establishing that application may go forward if there is no reaction by the relevant pubic authority within that set deadline;
(3) helping the applicant in determining whether the intended string is a city name or not; this could be done by an advisory body bound to confidentiality;
(4) creating greater predictability by deferring to local laws and policies defining what a “city name” is in each jurisdiction… something that in the age of big data should be rather simple…
(5) helping the applicant in identifying the relevant public authorities, and in establishing contact with them;
(6) establishing mediation or other dispute-resolution procedures when the applicant disagrees with the position taken by the relevant authority…
Etc.
These are all means to address some of the issues alleged on the functioning of the “non-objection”-letter framework, and to raise predictability and certainty for all parties, without breaking this model that in general (with some limited exceptions) worked well according to the reported data and facts.
Hope this may be helpful
Best
Jorge
*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Greg Shatan *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 11:32 *An:* alexander@schubert.berlin *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Maybe somebody “neutral” could summarize the suggested measures for the *treatment of (non-capital) cities*? Right now an applicant (for a non-capital city) requires Government support only if there is geo-use intent!
· Do we keep it that way,
· do we protect important (e.g. sizeable) cities a bit more,
· or do we skip the protections completely?
Seems these are the 3 choices. In MY view!
I would say there are more choices, or at least more variations, based on the type of mechanism used. There are mechanisms that come before the application is filed (e.g., the letter of consent/non-objection), mechanisms that come after the application is filed but during the application process (e.g., objections, and also letters of c/n-o if it's determined you must have one), and mechanisms that come after the TLD is delegated (Compliance issues, Dispute Resolution Procedures).
In some of these mechanisms, the "protectable right" is presumed (letter of consent/non-objection) and in others the "protectable right" must be proven (basically, all of the other mechanisms). How these variables could apply to protection of a category of geographic terms is critical. "Protection" could be acceptable with one set of variables and unacceptable with another set of variables. For example, the right to make an objection may be an acceptable protection where a letter of c/n-j is not.
If we frame this only as a choice between letters of consent/non-objection or no "protection" at all, the likelihood of reaching consensus drops drastically. We need to add methods of protection to the discussion of whether not protections should be granted in order to have the best chance of reaching consensus.
Greg
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Heather Forrest *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:42 AM *To:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Dear WT5 colleagues,
Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: "
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
· *Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
· *In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
· *And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!"*
This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop.
Kind regards,
Heather Forrest
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this.
Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)."
But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that.
If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust.
Marita
On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear Joe,
thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state:
*“……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around*
* the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….”*
Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view:
· We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement
· In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely:
o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”)
o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME)
o Capital cities
· All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules.
· The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up).
There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations):
· There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms!
· In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility!
· So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them?
· Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use!
· Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city?
· The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included).
· As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise!
· The compromise needs to:
o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains!
o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants!
· I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it:
o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on).
o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important!
o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city).
o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying!
· The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”!
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
· *Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
· *In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
· *And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!*
The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise.
A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable?
Anyone in?
Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Joe Alagna *Sent:* Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
*MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us <MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us>*
They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
*MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov <MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov>* (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So…
3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. *I would agree with that general principal* since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world.
6. Shouldn’t we *not* assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear Greg, indeed as you point out: The “term” city isn’t super precise! Look at the boroughs Queens and Brooklyn; which are arguably almost as famous as the city they are in. With well over 2 Million inhabitants they have more people each than Latvia or Estonia! However: The two main identifiers for people who live in large places are the country (hence the ccTLDs) and CITIES! Over 80% of Americans live in a “city”! So arguably for the overwhelming supermajority of people in the countries that use Internet most the “city” is a super important identifier! It’s an important public internet infrastructure city resource that deserves local management and oversight! THAT is why we have created the “city” category! Obviously any defined category won’t encompass ALL entities that seek or deserve inclusion. It might help to define it as “city and city-equivalent places”; which is probably only making it more murky. But if you want to expand the definition: I AM ALL FOR IT! We do have our AGB geo gTLD rules split into categories. And arguably there are currently TWO categories that are dealing with “cities”: Capital and non-capital cities. That’s a super large group, and these are SUPER important – as 80% of for example Americans live in one! If we want to further establish rules for other geo-entities: GREAT! But can we FOR ONCE stay with the topic matter and discuss NON-CAPITAL CITIES? Once we have dealt with that Elephant in the room we could add more categories. And beat me to death – but here it surefire comes again: * There must be a measure (any measure, we have to define it) that identifies cities that are “important” enough so that these have the same “protection rank” as a capital city or a subnational region. * Why on EARTH wouldn’t we grant these important geo entities the same protections; being: elimination of the “non-geo use” clause? * The only task would be to define the measure that identifies “important cities” (the term is wrong, “sizeable”, “impacting”, smth like that). And it should be a rather simple measure that is transparent, easy to understand and easy to implement! * Maybe we could collect suggestions on how to easily identify cities that deserve the same protections as capital cities? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 11:42 PM To: <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments What is the value in the word "city"? Why does it matter whether a locale is called a "city" or some other thing -- especially if the definitions vary so broadly that using the term as a single classification is meaningless? This shows that deciding that "cities" have "rights" is certainly not based on any standard. This could become an exercise in developing meaninglessness out of meanings. That is no way to build a specification. Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:52 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > wrote: Dear Marita Thanks very much for your feedback. I feel that subsidiarity means that you accept and are respectful of different solutions according to national laws and policies – setting an artificial one size fits all definition of “city” in ICANN is rather risky, difficult, and not respectful of different approaches at the local level. Perhaps this is a very Swiss thought, but one that works when different cultures, traditions and policies are at stake… Btw: I was not intending to make a distinction between city and city name, beyond the intrinsic difference that in national policies and laws you will normally find a definition of “city” in the abstract (e.g. in Switzerland this is linked to size and other statistical elements) and “city name” is the geoname as such, i.e. the question whether a string xyz matches a name of an entity defined as a “city” according to the relevant national law or policy. Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> ] Im Auftrag von Marita Moll Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 13:35 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi Jorge. I just have a thought on #4. It would be nice if deferring to local laws was agreed upon, but would that be considered "fair" if one locality defined city as something that could be rather small but with a unique feature and another locality defined city as something that had to be very large, i.e. certain number of people or certain area? I tossed some of the wikipedia site you sent around the other day in Italian re: definition of cities (my Italian is also non-existant) and here is part of what it says. "Of the title of city, in Italy, you can boast those municipalities that have been awarded with the decree of the King (until 1946) or the provisional head of the state (until 1948) or the president of the Republic, by virtue of their historical importance , artistic, civic or demographic. Many other cities are given the title by virtue of legislative acts of pre-unification states, or they do so for ancient and uninterrupted custom ....." (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titolo_di_citt%C3%A0_in_Italia) I don't think that sort of think applies anywhere in North America. In Canada, it is the provinces that define cities, not the federal state, and I am sure artistic elements aren't part of it. #4 in the list below, which I am addressing, refers to defining a "city name". Is that considered to be an operation different from defining a "city." Can anyone elaborate? Marita On 6/26/2018 12:45 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Greg and all Maybe we may slowly creating some common ground… Yesterday in the cross-community discussion there were ideas (some I proposed myself) such as (1) setting a deadline for reacting to a letter of non-objection request; (2) establishing that application may go forward if there is no reaction by the relevant pubic authority within that set deadline; (3) helping the applicant in determining whether the intended string is a city name or not; this could be done by an advisory body bound to confidentiality; (4) creating greater predictability by deferring to local laws and policies defining what a “city name” is in each jurisdiction… something that in the age of big data should be rather simple… (5) helping the applicant in identifying the relevant public authorities, and in establishing contact with them; (6) establishing mediation or other dispute-resolution procedures when the applicant disagrees with the position taken by the relevant authority… Etc. These are all means to address some of the issues alleged on the functioning of the “non-objection”-letter framework, and to raise predictability and certainty for all parties, without breaking this model that in general (with some limited exceptions) worked well according to the reported data and facts. Hope this may be helpful Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 11:32 An: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Maybe somebody “neutral” could summarize the suggested measures for the treatment of (non-capital) cities? Right now an applicant (for a non-capital city) requires Government support only if there is geo-use intent! * Do we keep it that way, * do we protect important (e.g. sizeable) cities a bit more, * or do we skip the protections completely? Seems these are the 3 choices. In MY view! I would say there are more choices, or at least more variations, based on the type of mechanism used. There are mechanisms that come before the application is filed (e.g., the letter of consent/non-objection), mechanisms that come after the application is filed but during the application process (e.g., objections, and also letters of c/n-o if it's determined you must have one), and mechanisms that come after the TLD is delegated (Compliance issues, Dispute Resolution Procedures). In some of these mechanisms, the "protectable right" is presumed (letter of consent/non-objection) and in others the "protectable right" must be proven (basically, all of the other mechanisms). How these variables could apply to protection of a category of geographic terms is critical. "Protection" could be acceptable with one set of variables and unacceptable with another set of variables. For example, the right to make an objection may be an acceptable protection where a letter of c/n-j is not. If we frame this only as a choice between letters of consent/non-objection or no "protection" at all, the likelihood of reaching consensus drops drastically. We need to add methods of protection to the discussion of whether not protections should be granted in order to have the best chance of reaching consensus. Greg From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:42 AM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Dear WT5 colleagues, Based on the summary of the Cross Community Topic that is taking place right now in Panama City ICANN62, and the discussions in the Working Group to this point, I do not agree with the assessment in Alexander's email that the WT5 current position is: " So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: * Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! * In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) * And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!" This may be a proposal or suggestion, but to be very clear, it is not an agreed position of WT5 members, nor indeed of the broader community participating in today's Cross Community Topic workshop. Kind regards, Heather Forrest On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> > wrote: Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this. Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)." But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that. If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust. Marita On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….” Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: * We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement * In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”) o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities * All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. * The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): * There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms! * In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! * So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? * Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! * Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? * The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). * As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! * The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! * I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! * The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: * Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! * In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) * And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: <mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: <mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ 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
I agree with Marita that the absolute number limit proposed by Alexander Schubert does not help! Hope there is an alternative --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez El 2018-06-25 08:47, Marita Moll escribió:
Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this.
Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a "cutoff" implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the "non-geo use" would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term - applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)."
But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that.
If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust.
Marita
On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear Joe,
thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven't been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state:
_ "......THE DISCUSSIONS SEEM TO HAVE ONLY MILDLY ADDRESSED THE THOUSANDS OF BUSINESS NAMES AROUND_
_ THE WORLD THAT ARE TRADEMARKED, THAT ALREADY CONTAIN GEOGRAPHIC NAMES, CITIES AND TERRITORIES...."_
Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view:
· We work off the 2012 AGB as a base - and try to identify areas of improvement
· In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely:
o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but ".europe")
o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn't granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME)
o Capital cities
· All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority - independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules.
· The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was "city names" - with "city" not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of "non-geo name use". That could be a brand, a generic term, or some ".xyz"-like fun theme: ".heyyou" - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up).
There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations):
· There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying "city names" - and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called "brands and generic terms!
· In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name - just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility!
· So if somebody would apply for ".telaviv" (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) - but claim "non-geo use" (which might be a ruse) - then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition - OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city's constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy - and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them?
· Plus: It doesn't really matters what the registry "intents" - the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD - and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose - and there won't be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use!
· Some here claim that "brands" have "rights" - while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty - as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city - and ICANN's mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping "brands" to squat on city resources! What is more important: the "right" of a small brand - or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city?
· The entire thing is a question of "culture" - and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included).
· As this is not an "election" where a "majority" decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a "winner" - and creating a big pool of "losers") - we will need to find an agreeable compromise!
· The compromise needs to:
o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains!
o But to not overprotect that category - because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants!
· I am lobbying for a certain workable solution - and it seems there has been broad support for it:
o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the "non-geo use" clause without replacement! (Don't get a cardiac arrest - read on).
o So if somebody applies for ".telaviv" and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a ".xyz" clone - they would need to get the city's approval first - to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important!
o To reduce this new burden there should be a "cutoff" implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the "non-geo use" would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term - applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city).
o Such cutoff could be a population size - the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying!
· The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN's mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a "big city" name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) - then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city's fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a "co-brand"; the "real brand" is the city brand; and you are living "off" it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no "non-geo use clause") - what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a "brand"!
SO IF THE 2012 AGB IS THE BASE; THE CURRENT WT5 SUGGESTION IS BEING FLOATED:
· KEEP EVERYTHING LIKE IT IS! IT WORKED AND IT IS FINE!
· IN THE CATEGORY "CITY": ELEVATE CITIES THAT MEET A CERTAIN REQUIREMENT INTO THE SAME STATUS AS SUBNATIONAL REGIONS OR CAPITAL CITIES! (MEANING: NO NON-GEO-USE CLAUSE)
· AND INDEED: A CITY WITH 500,000 PEOPLE SHOULD BE AS MINIUM AS IMPORTANT AS THE AVERAGE CAPITAL OR A SUBNATIONAL REGION! WHY SHOULD IT BE LESS PROTECTED, MAKES NO SENSE!
The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn't work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) - it doesn't work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let's simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise.
A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable?
Anyone in?
Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category - and should not be conflated with the city name category!
Thanks,
Alexander
FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Joe Alagna SENT: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM TO: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I've always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
MYKIDTEACHERSFIRSTNAME.LASTNAME@LAUNIFIEDSCHOOLDISTRICT.K12.CA.US
They don't seem to want to change this. Wouldn't it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
MYKIDSTEACHERSNAME@LAUNIFIED.GOV (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So...
3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed "ownership" of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4. Shouldn't we be careful not to try to confer preferences or "rights" at all? In fact, shouldn't we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. _I would agree with that general principal_ since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn't try to rule the world.
6. Shouldn't we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don't care - at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory's rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited - We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
An alternative is to defer to national laws and policies defining what is a “city” for each country. Such an information should be simple to assemble in the age of big data… Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Carlos Raul Gutierrez Gesendet: Montag, 25. Juni 2018 16:51 An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments I agree with Marita that the absolute number limit proposed by Alexander Schubert does not help! Hope there is an alternative --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez El 2018-06-25 08:47, Marita Moll escribió: Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this. Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a "cutoff" implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the "non-geo use" would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)." But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that. If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust. Marita On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven't been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: "......the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories...." Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: • We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement • In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but ".europe") o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn't granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities • All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. • The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was "city names" – with "city" not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of "non-geo name use". That could be a brand, a generic term, or some ".xyz"-like fun theme: ".heyyou" - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): • There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying "city names" – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called "brands and generic terms! • In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! • So if somebody would apply for ".telaviv" (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim "non-geo use" (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city's constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? • Plus: It doesn't really matters what the registry "intents" – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won't be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! • Some here claim that "brands" have "rights" – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN's mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping "brands" to squat on city resources! What is more important: the "right" of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? • The entire thing is a question of "culture" – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). • As this is not an "election" where a "majority" decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a "winner" – and creating a big pool of "losers") – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! • The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! • I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the "non-geo use" clause without replacement! (Don't get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for ".telaviv" and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a ".xyz" clone – they would need to get the city's approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a "cutoff" implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the "non-geo use" would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! • The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN's mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a "big city" name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city's fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a "co-brand"; the "real brand" is the city brand; and you are living "off" it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no "non-geo use clause") – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a "brand"! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category "city": elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn't work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn't work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let's simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I've always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us<mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> They don't seem to want to change this. Wouldn't it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov<mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So... 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed "ownership" of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn't we be careful not to try to confer preferences or "rights" at all? In fact, shouldn't we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn't try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn't we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don't care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory's rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna _______________________________________________ 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
Thank you Jorge! Sounds much better to me. Carlos R Gutierrez On June 25, 2018 5:15:58 PM EST, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
An alternative is to defer to national laws and policies defining what is a “city” for each country. Such an information should be simple to assemble in the age of big data… Best Jorge
Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Carlos Raul Gutierrez Gesendet: Montag, 25. Juni 2018 16:51 An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
I agree with Marita that the absolute number limit proposed by Alexander Schubert does not help! Hope there is an alternative --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
El 2018-06-25 08:47, Marita Moll escribió:
Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this.
Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a "cutoff" implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the "non-geo use" would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)."
But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that.
If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust.
Marita On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Joe,
thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven't been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: "......the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories...."
Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view:
• We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement
• In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely:
o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but ".europe")
o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn't granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME)
o Capital cities
• All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules.
• The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was "city names" – with "city" not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of "non-geo name use". That could be a brand, a generic term, or some ".xyz"-like fun theme: ".heyyou" - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up).
There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations):
• There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying "city names" – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called "brands and generic terms!
• In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility!
• So if somebody would apply for ".telaviv" (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim "non-geo use" (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city's constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them?
• Plus: It doesn't really matters what the registry "intents" – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won't be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use!
• Some here claim that "brands" have "rights" – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN's mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping "brands" to squat on city resources! What is more important: the "right" of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city?
• The entire thing is a question of "culture" – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included).
• As this is not an "election" where a "majority" decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a "winner" – and creating a big pool of "losers") – we will need to find an agreeable compromise!
• The compromise needs to:
o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains!
o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants!
• I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it:
o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the "non-geo use" clause without replacement! (Don't get a cardiac arrest – read on).
o So if somebody applies for ".telaviv" and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a ".xyz" clone – they would need to get the city's approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important!
o To reduce this new burden there should be a "cutoff" implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the "non-geo use" would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city).
o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying!
• The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN's mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a "big city" name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city's fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a "co-brand"; the "real brand" is the city brand; and you are living "off" it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no "non-geo use clause") – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a "brand"!
So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:
• Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!
• In the category "city": elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)
• And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!
The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn't work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn't work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let's simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise.
A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable?
Anyone in?
Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category!
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I've always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us<mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us>
They don't seem to want to change this. Wouldn't it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov<mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So...
3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed "ownership" of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4. Shouldn't we be careful not to try to confer preferences or "rights" at all? In fact, shouldn't we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn't try to rule the world.
6. Shouldn't we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don't care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory's rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
_______________________________________________
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
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Actually, Alexander had proposed a range -- from 100,000 to 500,000. And there is also the alternative of a pro-rated size depending on the state. Both of these can exist concurrently. So if it looked like I was agreeing with an absolute number, sorry. That's not really what was intended. As Jorge says, we do still have to define city. I don't know if his suggestion would be workable. In Italy, every small town with a Cathedral is a city. So we might have to go with a more encompassing definition. Marita On 6/25/2018 6:15 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
An alternative is to defer to national laws and policies defining what is a “city” for each country. Such an information should be simple to assemble in the age of big data…
Best
Jorge
*Von:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Carlos Raul Gutierrez *Gesendet:* Montag, 25. Juni 2018 16:51 *An:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
I agree with Marita that the absolute number limit proposed by Alexander Schubert does not help! Hope there is an alternative
---
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
El 2018-06-25 08:47, Marita Moll escribió:
Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this.
Not totally happy with "To reduce this new burden there should be a "cutoff" implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the "non-geo use" would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)."
But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that.
If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust.
Marita
On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear Joe,
thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven't been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state:
/*"......the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around*/
/* the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories...."*/
Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view:
·We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement
·In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely:
oUnesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but ".europe")
oISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn't granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME)
oCapital cities
·All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules.
·The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was "city names" – with "city" not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of "non-geo name use". That could be a brand, a generic term, or some ".xyz"-like fun theme: ".heyyou" - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up).
There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations):
·There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying "city names" – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called "brands and generic terms!
·In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility!
·So if somebody would apply for ".telaviv" (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim "non-geo use" (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city's constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them?
·Plus: It doesn't really matters what the registry "intents" – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won't be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use!
·Some here claim that "brands" have "rights" – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN's mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping "brands" to squat on city resources! What is more important: the "right" of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city?
·The entire thing is a question of "culture" – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included).
·As this is not an "election" where a "majority" decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a "winner" – and creating a big pool of "losers") – we will need to find an agreeable compromise!
·The compromise needs to:
oProtect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains!
oBut to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants!
·I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it:
oIn order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the "non-geo use" clause without replacement! (Don't get a cardiac arrest – read on).
oSo if somebody applies for ".telaviv" and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a ".xyz" clone – they would need to get the city's approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important!
oTo reduce this new burden there should be a "cutoff" implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the "non-geo use" would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city).
oSuch cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying!
·The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN's mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a "big city" name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city's fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a "co-brand"; the "real brand" is the city brand; and you are living "off" it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no "non-geo use clause") – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a "brand"!
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
·*Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
·*In the category "city": elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
·*And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!*
The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn't work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn't work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let's simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise.
A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable?
Anyone in?
Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Joe Alagna *Sent:* Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1.Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I've always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2.There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
*_MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us <mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us>_** * They don't seem to want to change this. Wouldn't it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
*_MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov <mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov>_*(or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So...
3.Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a.Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b.Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c.Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed "ownership" of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4.Shouldn't we be careful not to try to confer preferences or "rights" at all? In fact, shouldn't we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5.There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. /I would agree with that general principal/ since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn't try to rule the world.
6.Shouldn't we _not_ assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don't care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory's rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a.A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b.A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c.Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d.There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
_______________________________________________
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
My Italian is non existent, but it seems that there are some definitions out there that could give some clarity: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titolo_di_citt%C3%A0_in_Italia Most of the times, as this is a statistical term of art, the national statistics offices will count with a definition that is usable… Best Jorge Von: Marita Moll [mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net] Gesendet: Montag, 25. Juni 2018 17:33 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; carlosraul@gutierrez.se Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Actually, Alexander had proposed a range -- from 100,000 to 500,000. And there is also the alternative of a pro-rated size depending on the state. Both of these can exist concurrently. So if it looked like I was agreeing with an absolute number, sorry. That's not really what was intended. As Jorge says, we do still have to define city. I don't know if his suggestion would be workable. In Italy, every small town with a Cathedral is a city. So we might have to go with a more encompassing definition. Marita On 6/25/2018 6:15 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: An alternative is to defer to national laws and policies defining what is a “city” for each country. Such an information should be simple to assemble in the age of big data… Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Carlos Raul Gutierrez Gesendet: Montag, 25. Juni 2018 16:51 An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments I agree with Marita that the absolute number limit proposed by Alexander Schubert does not help! Hope there is an alternative --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez El 2018-06-25 08:47, Marita Moll escribió: Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this. Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a "cutoff" implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the "non-geo use" would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)." But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that. If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust. Marita On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven't been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: "......the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories...." Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: • We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement • In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but ".europe") o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn't granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities • All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. • The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was "city names" – with "city" not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of "non-geo name use". That could be a brand, a generic term, or some ".xyz"-like fun theme: ".heyyou" - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): • There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying "city names" – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called "brands and generic terms! • In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! • So if somebody would apply for ".telaviv" (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim "non-geo use" (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city's constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? • Plus: It doesn't really matters what the registry "intents" – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won't be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! • Some here claim that "brands" have "rights" – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN's mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping "brands" to squat on city resources! What is more important: the "right" of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? • The entire thing is a question of "culture" – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). • As this is not an "election" where a "majority" decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a "winner" – and creating a big pool of "losers") – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! • The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! • I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the "non-geo use" clause without replacement! (Don't get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for ".telaviv" and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a ".xyz" clone – they would need to get the city's approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a "cutoff" implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the "non-geo use" would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! • The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN's mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a "big city" name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city's fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a "co-brand"; the "real brand" is the city brand; and you are living "off" it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no "non-geo use clause") – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a "brand"! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category "city": elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn't work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn't work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let's simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I've always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us<mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> They don't seem to want to change this. Wouldn't it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov<mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So... 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed "ownership" of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn't we be careful not to try to confer preferences or "rights" at all? In fact, shouldn't we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn't try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn't we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don't care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory's rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Hi there, that’s why very cautiously I suggested that it must be a “cutoff criterion” – how we define it is a different task! First we would have to agree that once a city meets a certain criterion it is as important as a capital city; hence there can’t be the “no-geo use” clause! Once we adopt that rationale we can go searching for the criterion. Two wholly independent issues. We need a rule that is halfway simple to understand and implement. Population size (relative or absolute or a combination of both) is a fair and simple criterion. But if we find something better: GREAT! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Raul Gutierrez Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:51 AM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments I agree with Marita that the absolute number limit proposed by Alexander Schubert does not help! Hope there is an alternative --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez El 2018-06-25 08:47, Marita Moll escribió: Thanks for this summary Alexander. I agree with most of this. Not totally happy with " To reduce this new burden there should be a "cutoff" implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the "non-geo use" would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city)." But, as you say, there has to be compromise. I wish there was a way to protect special places which have had a glorious past but are now reduced to out of the way tourist sites (ancient Etruscan city Volterra) -- but this may be addressed through UNESCO regions -- not sure about that. If we can protect cities of 500,000 and over, that will be around 1000 strings and a huge number of people. I am sure brands can adjust. Marita On 6/25/2018 5:05 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven't been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: "......the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories...." Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: * We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement * In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but ".europe") o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn't granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities * All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. * The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was "city names" – with "city" not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of "non-geo name use". That could be a brand, a generic term, or some ".xyz"-like fun theme: ".heyyou" - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): * There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying "city names" – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called "brands and generic terms! * In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! * So if somebody would apply for ".telaviv" (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim "non-geo use" (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city's constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? * Plus: It doesn't really matters what the registry "intents" – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won't be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! * Some here claim that "brands" have "rights" – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN's mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping "brands" to squat on city resources! What is more important: the "right" of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? * The entire thing is a question of "culture" – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). * As this is not an "election" where a "majority" decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a "winner" – and creating a big pool of "losers") – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! * The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! * I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the "non-geo use" clause without replacement! (Don't get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for ".telaviv" and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a ".xyz" clone – they would need to get the city's approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a "cutoff" implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the "non-geo use" would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! * The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN's mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a "big city" name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city's fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a "co-brand"; the "real brand" is the city brand; and you are living "off" it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no "non-geo use clause") – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a "brand"! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: * Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! * In the category "city": elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) * And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn't work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn't work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let's simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I've always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: <mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us They don't seem to want to change this. Wouldn't it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: <mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So... 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed "ownership" of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn't we be careful not to try to confer preferences or "rights" at all? In fact, shouldn't we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn't try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn't we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don't care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory's rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Hi Alex, Thanks for your thoughts. I've replied and commented in the attached PDF. My comments in purple. Sincerely, Joe On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 2:06 AM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote
Dear Joe,
thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state:
* “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around*
* the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….”*
Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view:
· We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement
· In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely:
o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”)
o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME)
o Capital cities
· All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules.
· The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up).
There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations):
· There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms!
· In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility!
· So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them?
· Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use!
· Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city?
· The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included).
· As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise!
· The compromise needs to:
o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains!
o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants!
· I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it:
o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on).
o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important!
o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city).
o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying!
· The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”!
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
· *Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
· *In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
· *And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!*
The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise.
A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable?
Anyone in?
Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Joe Alagna *Sent:* Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Work Track 5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
*MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us <MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us>*
They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
*MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov <MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov>* (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So…
3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. *I would agree with that general principal* since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world.
6. Shouldn’t we *not* assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
Joe, I want to clarify some areas where Alexander's characterizations of the group's work to date don't appear correct. In particular: - We have *not* spent our time discussing practically nothing else than trademark-related issues specifically. We *have* spent a great deal of time discussing a more general topic -- are place-name meanings somehow superior to ALL other meanings? This includes trademark meanings, surnames, nouns that are not proper nouns (BAR, SPA, ROCK), communities (aside from the community of the place(s) with that name. Casting this as a trademark discussion misses the point entirely. - It is not an accepted concept that the 2012 AGB is the starting point of our work (vs. the policy recommendations that preceded it; after all, this is a "policy development process." It is *certainly *not a base in the sense of a "floor" changes to the 2012 AGB could go in any direction – and in many cases, there's no agreement on whether any particular change would be an "improvement." · Alexander says the 2012 AGB protected "very few geo names." ISO 3166-2 protected nearly 6,000 names. Capital cities protected roughly 250 names. The UNESCO regions and subregions (ignored by Alexander) add another 35 names (only 2 of which are registered TLDs, contrary to Alexander's email). That's a "protect list" of roughly* 6,285* names. I would not call that "very few." Each of these was blocked unless the relevant governmental authorities granted a letter of consent/non-objection (at their sole discretion). Alexander claims "And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules." *Nothing could be further from the truth.* There have been repeated challenges to continued blocking based on the ISO-3166-2 list. To the extent capital cities have not been challenged, I believe that has been based on the hopeful idea of compromise to reach consensus. Subregion names have not really been discussed one way or the other. Of course, non-capital cities are also protected -- this adds *4,400-50,000* more places, yielding a total between approximately *11,000* names and more than *56,000* names. That certainly cannot be "very few." All of these issues are still open items. So, it's incorrect to say that "The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names.”" There has been a tendency by some to try and close discussions with premature declarations of victory (somehow it never works the other way...). This should be seen in that context. This really has nothing to do with free speech rights of citizens -- if they want a second level domain, they can get one. If their city wants a TLD, they can get one. This is about blocking names from use and giving one or more governments the power to decide what speech will be allowed. This is the opposite of free speech. The idea of giving reservation/blocking rights to governments based on "potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names”" seems like a terrible blow to free speech, a form of "prior restraint" on speech, which is particularly disfavored. Of course, nothing will stop any city from getting a TLD related to their name now, or in the future (even if their first choice is not available). Since this isn't really about "free speech rights for cities" at all, I'll skip responding to those items, except to note that the so-called "free speech" here is a peculiar invention: the ability of citizens "to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name." Since the TLD will not exist because of this rule, the ability to use such a domain name doesn't exist. Similarly, hypotheticals that are full of false assumptions and one sided presumptions intended to paint a David vs. Goliath picture don't need further response, since they do not illustrate any general principle. (As for the good people of Tel Aviv, they would likely prefer "Tel Aviv" in Hebrew.) But it is good to know that Alexander thinks the 2012 rules are "horrible." Alexander dismisses the whole complex issue of "intent" based on a false premise -- that because the registrars will sell the domain names, that the registry's intent regarding the domain name doesn't matter. First, this obviously ignores .brands, who will not be selling domain names at all. Second, there are many cases where TLDs are restricted as to the type and scope of use by registrants -- not least, many .cityname TLDs! Whether brands have rights (which of course they do) is really not an issue here. Brands are not looking to exercise any rights here to stop other applications, nor have brands asserted superior privileges over other legitimate applicants. Again, I won't pick through all of the baseless assumptions and pejorative terms used to cobble together an argument.... But I will say the idea that this is a "culture war" doesn't hold water (and certainly is not how this has been framed generally, if you are looking to catch up on the work of the group. As for the proposed "compromise" -- it's no compromise at all, since it starts with a false premise -- that this is a "free speech" question for "citizens." The idea that the has been "broad support" for the "solution" proposed is similarly incorrect. This is certainly the solution Alexander has repeatedly brought up, but there is no basis to say there is broad support for it (though there is some support). Getting rid of intent limitations without getting rid of blocking privileges is no compromise at all. Once again, this proposal is supported by inaccurate and unsupported statements. Close to zero burden? Applicants would have a higher burden than before -- the requirement to bargain for the blessing of a government even where their intended use is not associated with that place. The assumption that a brand that shares a name with a big city "deliberately chose it" to "profit from the image" of the city and that it's living off of it or "piggybacking' on it is phrased pejoratively, but not in any way proven. Building on this concept, we get into invented concepts without any basis in law or facts: that there are "certain obligations" a brand has to a city it shares a name with; that the brand is some sort of “co-brand"; that the “real brand” is the city brand. These are incredibly fact specific assumptions, and even if the facts are as stated, that creates no obligations or privileges. Furthermore this ignores the issue of generics and other applicants with other issues. I guess there's no pejorative fable to tell about these applicants... The so-called "current WT5 suggestion" is being "floated" largely by Alexander. In reality, it's a lead balloon and NOT workable. I would "float" a different "WT5 suggestion" as a compromise: - The status quo did not work and it is not fine. (Perhaps it worked well for the public authorities; there are numerous applicants that had nightmare scenarios (e.g., TATA) - Continue the "intent" limitation in the category “city” and apply the same limitation to subnational regions. (This is a big compromise, since it would really be much more appropriate to deal with these issues on an objection or "after-the-fact" basis) That is my "reach across the aisle" on this point. I am also passionate about the rights of people and public benefit -- but "geo-uses" does not have a monopoly on either point. As for looking at "geo-names not previously protected" -- I think it would be far more fruitful to start looking at "after-the-fact" solutions for public authorities that feel they actually have been harmed rather than continuing to try to use blocking privileges as a solution. Greg On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:05 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Dear Joe,
thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state:
* “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around*
* the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….”*
Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view:
· We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement
· In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely:
o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”)
o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME)
o Capital cities
· All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules.
· The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up).
There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations):
· There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms!
· In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility!
· So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them?
· Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use!
· Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city?
· The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included).
· As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise!
· The compromise needs to:
o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains!
o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants!
· I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it:
o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on).
o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important!
o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city).
o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying!
· The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”!
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
· *Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
· *In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
· *And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!*
The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise.
A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable?
Anyone in?
Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Joe Alagna *Sent:* Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Work Track 5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
*MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us <MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us>*
They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
*MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov <MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov>* (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So…
3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. *I would agree with that general principal* since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world.
6. Shouldn’t we *not* assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Thank you Greg. I wonder though if there are ways we can come together on certain points? 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 25 Jun 2018, at 6:30 pm, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Joe, I want to clarify some areas where Alexander's characterizations of the group's work to date don't appear correct. In particular: * We have not spent our time discussing practically nothing else than trademark-related issues specifically. We have spent a great deal of time discussing a more general topic -- are place-name meanings somehow superior to ALL other meanings? This includes trademark meanings, surnames, nouns that are not proper nouns (BAR, SPA, ROCK), communities (aside from the community of the place(s) with that name. Casting this as a trademark discussion misses the point entirely. * It is not an accepted concept that the 2012 AGB is the starting point of our work (vs. the policy recommendations that preceded it; after all, this is a "policy development process." It is certainly not a base in the sense of a "floor" changes to the 2012 AGB could go in any direction – and in many cases, there's no agreement on whether any particular change would be an "improvement." · Alexander says the 2012 AGB protected "very few geo names." ISO 3166-2 protected nearly 6,000 names. Capital cities protected roughly 250 names. The UNESCO regions and subregions (ignored by Alexander) add another 35 names (only 2 of which are registered TLDs, contrary to Alexander's email). That's a "protect list" of roughly 6,285 names. I would not call that "very few." Each of these was blocked unless the relevant governmental authorities granted a letter of consent/non-objection (at their sole discretion). Alexander claims "And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules." Nothing could be further from the truth. There have been repeated challenges to continued blocking based on the ISO-3166-2 list. To the extent capital cities have not been challenged, I believe that has been based on the hopeful idea of compromise to reach consensus. Subregion names have not really been discussed one way or the other. Of course, non-capital cities are also protected -- this adds 4,400-50,000 more places, yielding a total between approximately 11,000 names and more than 56,000 names. That certainly cannot be "very few." All of these issues are still open items. So, it's incorrect to say that "The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names.”" There has been a tendency by some to try and close discussions with premature declarations of victory (somehow it never works the other way...). This should be seen in that context. This really has nothing to do with free speech rights of citizens -- if they want a second level domain, they can get one. If their city wants a TLD, they can get one. This is about blocking names from use and giving one or more governments the power to decide what speech will be allowed. This is the opposite of free speech. The idea of giving reservation/blocking rights to governments based on "potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names”" seems like a terrible blow to free speech, a form of "prior restraint" on speech, which is particularly disfavored. Of course, nothing will stop any city from getting a TLD related to their name now, or in the future (even if their first choice is not available). Since this isn't really about "free speech rights for cities" at all, I'll skip responding to those items, except to note that the so-called "free speech" here is a peculiar invention: the ability of citizens "to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name." Since the TLD will not exist because of this rule, the ability to use such a domain name doesn't exist. Similarly, hypotheticals that are full of false assumptions and one sided presumptions intended to paint a David vs. Goliath picture don't need further response, since they do not illustrate any general principle. (As for the good people of Tel Aviv, they would likely prefer "Tel Aviv" in Hebrew.) But it is good to know that Alexander thinks the 2012 rules are "horrible." Alexander dismisses the whole complex issue of "intent" based on a false premise -- that because the registrars will sell the domain names, that the registry's intent regarding the domain name doesn't matter. First, this obviously ignores .brands, who will not be selling domain names at all. Second, there are many cases where TLDs are restricted as to the type and scope of use by registrants -- not least, many .cityname TLDs! Whether brands have rights (which of course they do) is really not an issue here. Brands are not looking to exercise any rights here to stop other applications, nor have brands asserted superior privileges over other legitimate applicants. Again, I won't pick through all of the baseless assumptions and pejorative terms used to cobble together an argument.... But I will say the idea that this is a "culture war" doesn't hold water (and certainly is not how this has been framed generally, if you are looking to catch up on the work of the group. As for the proposed "compromise" -- it's no compromise at all, since it starts with a false premise -- that this is a "free speech" question for "citizens." The idea that the has been "broad support" for the "solution" proposed is similarly incorrect. This is certainly the solution Alexander has repeatedly brought up, but there is no basis to say there is broad support for it (though there is some support). Getting rid of intent limitations without getting rid of blocking privileges is no compromise at all. Once again, this proposal is supported by inaccurate and unsupported statements. Close to zero burden? Applicants would have a higher burden than before -- the requirement to bargain for the blessing of a government even where their intended use is not associated with that place. The assumption that a brand that shares a name with a big city "deliberately chose it" to "profit from the image" of the city and that it's living off of it or "piggybacking' on it is phrased pejoratively, but not in any way proven. Building on this concept, we get into invented concepts without any basis in law or facts: that there are "certain obligations" a brand has to a city it shares a name with; that the brand is some sort of “co-brand"; that the “real brand” is the city brand. These are incredibly fact specific assumptions, and even if the facts are as stated, that creates no obligations or privileges. Furthermore this ignores the issue of generics and other applicants with other issues. I guess there's no pejorative fable to tell about these applicants... The so-called "current WT5 suggestion" is being "floated" largely by Alexander. In reality, it's a lead balloon and NOT workable. I would "float" a different "WT5 suggestion" as a compromise: * The status quo did not work and it is not fine. (Perhaps it worked well for the public authorities; there are numerous applicants that had nightmare scenarios (e.g., TATA) * Continue the "intent" limitation in the category “city” and apply the same limitation to subnational regions. (This is a big compromise, since it would really be much more appropriate to deal with these issues on an objection or "after-the-fact" basis) That is my "reach across the aisle" on this point. I am also passionate about the rights of people and public benefit -- but "geo-uses" does not have a monopoly on either point. As for looking at "geo-names not previously protected" -- I think it would be far more fruitful to start looking at "after-the-fact" solutions for public authorities that feel they actually have been harmed rather than continuing to try to use blocking privileges as a solution. Greg On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:05 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Dear Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….” Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: • We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement • In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”) o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities • All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. • The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): • There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms! • In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! • So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? • Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! • Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? • The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). • As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! • The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! • I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! • The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: • Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! • In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) • And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! 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 Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us<mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov<mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna _______________________________________________ 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
Agree w/ Greg completely. Alexander has stated his position --- but it isn’t a consensus. Certainly I disagree with it. P Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 7:31 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Joe, I want to clarify some areas where Alexander's characterizations of the group's work to date don't appear correct. In particular: * We have not spent our time discussing practically nothing else than trademark-related issues specifically. We have spent a great deal of time discussing a more general topic -- are place-name meanings somehow superior to ALL other meanings? This includes trademark meanings, surnames, nouns that are not proper nouns (BAR, SPA, ROCK), communities (aside from the community of the place(s) with that name. Casting this as a trademark discussion misses the point entirely. * It is not an accepted concept that the 2012 AGB is the starting point of our work (vs. the policy recommendations that preceded it; after all, this is a "policy development process." It is certainly not a base in the sense of a "floor" changes to the 2012 AGB could go in any direction – and in many cases, there's no agreement on whether any particular change would be an "improvement." · Alexander says the 2012 AGB protected "very few geo names." ISO 3166-2 protected nearly 6,000 names. Capital cities protected roughly 250 names. The UNESCO regions and subregions (ignored by Alexander) add another 35 names (only 2 of which are registered TLDs, contrary to Alexander's email). That's a "protect list" of roughly 6,285 names. I would not call that "very few." Each of these was blocked unless the relevant governmental authorities granted a letter of consent/non-objection (at their sole discretion). Alexander claims "And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules." Nothing could be further from the truth. There have been repeated challenges to continued blocking based on the ISO-3166-2 list. To the extent capital cities have not been challenged, I believe that has been based on the hopeful idea of compromise to reach consensus. Subregion names have not really been discussed one way or the other. Of course, non-capital cities are also protected -- this adds 4,400-50,000 more places, yielding a total between approximately 11,000 names and more than 56,000 names. That certainly cannot be "very few." All of these issues are still open items. So, it's incorrect to say that "The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names.”" There has been a tendency by some to try and close discussions with premature declarations of victory (somehow it never works the other way...). This should be seen in that context. This really has nothing to do with free speech rights of citizens -- if they want a second level domain, they can get one. If their city wants a TLD, they can get one. This is about blocking names from use and giving one or more governments the power to decide what speech will be allowed. This is the opposite of free speech. The idea of giving reservation/blocking rights to governments based on "potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names”" seems like a terrible blow to free speech, a form of "prior restraint" on speech, which is particularly disfavored. Of course, nothing will stop any city from getting a TLD related to their name now, or in the future (even if their first choice is not available). Since this isn't really about "free speech rights for cities" at all, I'll skip responding to those items, except to note that the so-called "free speech" here is a peculiar invention: the ability of citizens "to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name." Since the TLD will not exist because of this rule, the ability to use such a domain name doesn't exist. Similarly, hypotheticals that are full of false assumptions and one sided presumptions intended to paint a David vs. Goliath picture don't need further response, since they do not illustrate any general principle. (As for the good people of Tel Aviv, they would likely prefer "Tel Aviv" in Hebrew.) But it is good to know that Alexander thinks the 2012 rules are "horrible." Alexander dismisses the whole complex issue of "intent" based on a false premise -- that because the registrars will sell the domain names, that the registry's intent regarding the domain name doesn't matter. First, this obviously ignores .brands, who will not be selling domain names at all. Second, there are many cases where TLDs are restricted as to the type and scope of use by registrants -- not least, many .cityname TLDs! Whether brands have rights (which of course they do) is really not an issue here. Brands are not looking to exercise any rights here to stop other applications, nor have brands asserted superior privileges over other legitimate applicants. Again, I won't pick through all of the baseless assumptions and pejorative terms used to cobble together an argument.... But I will say the idea that this is a "culture war" doesn't hold water (and certainly is not how this has been framed generally, if you are looking to catch up on the work of the group. As for the proposed "compromise" -- it's no compromise at all, since it starts with a false premise -- that this is a "free speech" question for "citizens." The idea that the has been "broad support" for the "solution" proposed is similarly incorrect. This is certainly the solution Alexander has repeatedly brought up, but there is no basis to say there is broad support for it (though there is some support). Getting rid of intent limitations without getting rid of blocking privileges is no compromise at all. Once again, this proposal is supported by inaccurate and unsupported statements. Close to zero burden? Applicants would have a higher burden than before -- the requirement to bargain for the blessing of a government even where their intended use is not associated with that place. The assumption that a brand that shares a name with a big city "deliberately chose it" to "profit from the image" of the city and that it's living off of it or "piggybacking' on it is phrased pejoratively, but not in any way proven. Building on this concept, we get into invented concepts without any basis in law or facts: that there are "certain obligations" a brand has to a city it shares a name with; that the brand is some sort of “co-brand"; that the “real brand” is the city brand. These are incredibly fact specific assumptions, and even if the facts are as stated, that creates no obligations or privileges. Furthermore this ignores the issue of generics and other applicants with other issues. I guess there's no pejorative fable to tell about these applicants... The so-called "current WT5 suggestion" is being "floated" largely by Alexander. In reality, it's a lead balloon and NOT workable. I would "float" a different "WT5 suggestion" as a compromise: * The status quo did not work and it is not fine. (Perhaps it worked well for the public authorities; there are numerous applicants that had nightmare scenarios (e.g., TATA) * Continue the "intent" limitation in the category “city” and apply the same limitation to subnational regions. (This is a big compromise, since it would really be much more appropriate to deal with these issues on an objection or "after-the-fact" basis) That is my "reach across the aisle" on this point. I am also passionate about the rights of people and public benefit -- but "geo-uses" does not have a monopoly on either point. As for looking at "geo-names not previously protected" -- I think it would be far more fruitful to start looking at "after-the-fact" solutions for public authorities that feel they actually have been harmed rather than continuing to try to use blocking privileges as a solution. Greg On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:05 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Dear Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….” Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: * We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement * In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”) o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities * All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. * The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): * There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms! * In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! * So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? * Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! * Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? * The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). * As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! * The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! * I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! * The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: * Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! * In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) * And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! 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 Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: <mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: <mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna _______________________________________________ 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 Greg, it makes little to no sense to rebuke each of your comments. And when I opinioned that “very few names have been protected in the 2012 AGB” – I factored in that the ISO 3166 Alpha-2 regions have actually mostly ZERO overlap with “brands” or “generic terms”; in other words: Having them protected doesn’t really infringe on anybody’s freedoms. Let me give you a few examples off 3166 Alpha-2: * Švenčionys * Šalčininkai * Ukmergė * Inčukalns * Ikšķile * Kārsava Just a few from LV and LT, my backyard! It gets even more cryptic if you go to Asia or central Africa. But you are right –and I have actually lobbied for it in the past- if we introduce a cutoff (in whatever fashion): then while that would grant sizeable cities the same protections as capitals already enjoy, we could say that 3166 Alpha-2 regions which do NOT meet these cutoff criteria would still need a letter of non-objection if geo-use is intended, but that requirement could be waived if it is a brand or generic term (no geo-use intent). So the cut-off sword could cut in both directions – for fairness! Thanks, Alexander From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 2:31 AM To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Joe, I want to clarify some areas where Alexander's characterizations of the group's work to date don't appear correct. In particular: * We have not spent our time discussing practically nothing else than trademark-related issues specifically. We have spent a great deal of time discussing a more general topic -- are place-name meanings somehow superior to ALL other meanings? This includes trademark meanings, surnames, nouns that are not proper nouns (BAR, SPA, ROCK), communities (aside from the community of the place(s) with that name. Casting this as a trademark discussion misses the point entirely. * It is not an accepted concept that the 2012 AGB is the starting point of our work (vs. the policy recommendations that preceded it; after all, this is a "policy development process." It is certainly not a base in the sense of a "floor" changes to the 2012 AGB could go in any direction – and in many cases, there's no agreement on whether any particular change would be an "improvement." · Alexander says the 2012 AGB protected "very few geo names." ISO 3166-2 protected nearly 6,000 names. Capital cities protected roughly 250 names. The UNESCO regions and subregions (ignored by Alexander) add another 35 names (only 2 of which are registered TLDs, contrary to Alexander's email). That's a "protect list" of roughly 6,285 names. I would not call that "very few." Each of these was blocked unless the relevant governmental authorities granted a letter of consent/non-objection (at their sole discretion). Alexander claims "And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules." Nothing could be further from the truth. There have been repeated challenges to continued blocking based on the ISO-3166-2 list. To the extent capital cities have not been challenged, I believe that has been based on the hopeful idea of compromise to reach consensus. Subregion names have not really been discussed one way or the other. Of course, non-capital cities are also protected -- this adds 4,400-50,000 more places, yielding a total between approximately 11,000 names and more than 56,000 names. That certainly cannot be "very few." All of these issues are still open items. So, it's incorrect to say that "The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names.”" There has been a tendency by some to try and close discussions with premature declarations of victory (somehow it never works the other way...). This should be seen in that context. This really has nothing to do with free speech rights of citizens -- if they want a second level domain, they can get one. If their city wants a TLD, they can get one. This is about blocking names from use and giving one or more governments the power to decide what speech will be allowed. This is the opposite of free speech. The idea of giving reservation/blocking rights to governments based on "potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names”" seems like a terrible blow to free speech, a form of "prior restraint" on speech, which is particularly disfavored. Of course, nothing will stop any city from getting a TLD related to their name now, or in the future (even if their first choice is not available). Since this isn't really about "free speech rights for cities" at all, I'll skip responding to those items, except to note that the so-called "free speech" here is a peculiar invention: the ability of citizens "to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name." Since the TLD will not exist because of this rule, the ability to use such a domain name doesn't exist. Similarly, hypotheticals that are full of false assumptions and one sided presumptions intended to paint a David vs. Goliath picture don't need further response, since they do not illustrate any general principle. (As for the good people of Tel Aviv, they would likely prefer "Tel Aviv" in Hebrew.) But it is good to know that Alexander thinks the 2012 rules are "horrible." Alexander dismisses the whole complex issue of "intent" based on a false premise -- that because the registrars will sell the domain names, that the registry's intent regarding the domain name doesn't matter. First, this obviously ignores .brands, who will not be selling domain names at all. Second, there are many cases where TLDs are restricted as to the type and scope of use by registrants -- not least, many .cityname TLDs! Whether brands have rights (which of course they do) is really not an issue here. Brands are not looking to exercise any rights here to stop other applications, nor have brands asserted superior privileges over other legitimate applicants. Again, I won't pick through all of the baseless assumptions and pejorative terms used to cobble together an argument.... But I will say the idea that this is a "culture war" doesn't hold water (and certainly is not how this has been framed generally, if you are looking to catch up on the work of the group. As for the proposed "compromise" -- it's no compromise at all, since it starts with a false premise -- that this is a "free speech" question for "citizens." The idea that the has been "broad support" for the "solution" proposed is similarly incorrect. This is certainly the solution Alexander has repeatedly brought up, but there is no basis to say there is broad support for it (though there is some support). Getting rid of intent limitations without getting rid of blocking privileges is no compromise at all. Once again, this proposal is supported by inaccurate and unsupported statements. Close to zero burden? Applicants would have a higher burden than before -- the requirement to bargain for the blessing of a government even where their intended use is not associated with that place. The assumption that a brand that shares a name with a big city "deliberately chose it" to "profit from the image" of the city and that it's living off of it or "piggybacking' on it is phrased pejoratively, but not in any way proven. Building on this concept, we get into invented concepts without any basis in law or facts: that there are "certain obligations" a brand has to a city it shares a name with; that the brand is some sort of “co-brand"; that the “real brand” is the city brand. These are incredibly fact specific assumptions, and even if the facts are as stated, that creates no obligations or privileges. Furthermore this ignores the issue of generics and other applicants with other issues. I guess there's no pejorative fable to tell about these applicants... The so-called "current WT5 suggestion" is being "floated" largely by Alexander. In reality, it's a lead balloon and NOT workable. I would "float" a different "WT5 suggestion" as a compromise: * The status quo did not work and it is not fine. (Perhaps it worked well for the public authorities; there are numerous applicants that had nightmare scenarios (e.g., TATA) * Continue the "intent" limitation in the category “city” and apply the same limitation to subnational regions. (This is a big compromise, since it would really be much more appropriate to deal with these issues on an objection or "after-the-fact" basis) That is my "reach across the aisle" on this point. I am also passionate about the rights of people and public benefit -- but "geo-uses" does not have a monopoly on either point. As for looking at "geo-names not previously protected" -- I think it would be far more fruitful to start looking at "after-the-fact" solutions for public authorities that feel they actually have been harmed rather than continuing to try to use blocking privileges as a solution. Greg On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:05 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Dear Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….” Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: * We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement * In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”) o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities * All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. * The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): * There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms! * In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! * So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? * Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! * Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? * The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). * As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! * The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! * I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! * The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: * Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! * In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) * And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! 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 Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: <mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: <mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna _______________________________________________ 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 Greg. I object to your painting all the positions you disagree with as positions held by Alexander. That's not just misleading, it's false. The positions you disagree are supported by quite a few people. Throwing them all into one box labeled "Alexander says" (you used the name at least 10 times) is a way of discrediting ideas by pinning them on a single individual. It is a well known technique in political discourse when you are trying to discredit someone. Let's not do that here. Marita On 6/25/2018 7:30 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Joe,
I want to clarify some areas where Alexander's characterizations of the group's work to date don't appear correct. In particular:
* We have *not* spent our time discussing practically nothing else than trademark-related issues specifically. We *have* spent a great deal of time discussing a more general topic -- are place-name meanings somehow superior to ALL other meanings? This includes trademark meanings, surnames, nouns that are not proper nouns (BAR, SPA, ROCK), communities (aside from the community of the place(s) with that name. Casting this as a trademark discussion misses the point entirely.
* It is not an accepted concept that the 2012 AGB is the starting point of our work (vs. the policy recommendations that preceded it; after all, this is a "policy development process." It is *certainly *not a base in the sense of a "floor" changes to the 2012 AGB could go in any direction – and in many cases, there's no agreement on whether any particular change would be an "improvement."
·Alexander says the 2012 AGB protected "very few geo names." ISO 3166-2 protected nearly 6,000 names. Capital cities protected roughly 250 names. The UNESCO regions and subregions (ignored by Alexander) add another 35 names (only 2 of which are registered TLDs, contrary to Alexander's email). That's a "protect list" of roughly*6,285* names. I would not call that "very few."
Each of these was blocked unless the relevant governmental authorities granted a letter of consent/non-objection (at their sole discretion). Alexander claims "And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules." *_Nothing could be further from the truth._* There have been repeated challenges to continued blocking based on the ISO-3166-2 list. To the extent capital cities have not been challenged, I believe that has been based on the hopeful idea of compromise to reach consensus. Subregion names have not really been discussed one way or the other.
Of course, non-capital cities are also protected -- this adds *4,400-50,000* more places, yielding a total between approximately *11,000* names and more than *56,000* names. That certainly cannot be "very few."
All of these issues are still open items. So, it's incorrect to say that "The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names.”" There has been a tendency by some to try and close discussions with premature declarations of victory (somehow it never works the other way...). This should be seen in that context.
This really has nothing to do with free speech rights of citizens -- if they want a second level domain, they can get one. If their city wants a TLD, they can get one. This is about blocking names from use and giving one or more governments the power to decide what speech will be allowed. This is the opposite of free speech.
The idea of giving reservation/blocking rights to governments based on "potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names”" seems like a terrible blow to free speech, a form of "prior restraint" on speech, which is particularly disfavored. Of course, nothing will stop any city from getting a TLD related to their name now, or in the future (even if their first choice is not available).
Since this isn't really about "free speech rights for cities" at all, I'll skip responding to those items, except to note that the so-called "free speech" here is a peculiar invention: the ability of citizens "to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name." Since the TLD will not exist because of this rule, the ability to use such a domain name doesn't exist.
Similarly, hypotheticals that are full of false assumptions and one sided presumptions intended to paint a David vs. Goliath picture don't need further response, since they do not illustrate any general principle. (As for the good people of Tel Aviv, they would likely prefer "Tel Aviv" in Hebrew.)But it is good to know that Alexander thinks the 2012 rules are "horrible."
Alexander dismisses the whole complex issue of "intent" based on a false premise -- that because the registrars will sell the domain names, that the registry's intent regarding the domain name doesn't matter. First, this obviously ignores .brands, who will not be selling domain names at all. Second, there are many cases where TLDs are restricted as to the type and scope of use by registrants -- not least, many .cityname TLDs!
Whether brands have rights (which of course they do) is really not an issue here. Brands are not looking to exercise any rights here to stop other applications, nor have brands asserted superior privileges over other legitimate applicants. Again, I won't pick through all of the baseless assumptions and pejorative terms used to cobble together an argument.... But I will say the idea that this is a "culture war" doesn't hold water (and certainly is not how this has been framed generally, if you are looking to catch up on the work of the group.
As for the proposed "compromise" -- it's no compromise at all, since it starts with a false premise -- that this is a "free speech" question for "citizens." The idea that the has been "broad support" for the "solution" proposed is similarly incorrect. This is certainly the solution Alexander has repeatedly brought up, but there is no basis to say there is broad support for it (though there is some support). Getting rid of intent limitations without getting rid of blocking privileges is no compromise at all.
Once again, this proposal is supported by inaccurate and unsupported statements.
Close to zero burden? Applicants would have a higher burden than before -- the requirement to bargain for the blessing of a government even where their intended use is not associated with that place.
The assumption that a brand that shares a name with a big city "deliberately chose it" to "profit from the image" of the city and that it's living off of it or "piggybacking' on it is phrased pejoratively, but not in any way proven. Building on this concept, we get into invented concepts without any basis in law or facts: that there are "certain obligations" a brand has to a city it shares a name with; that the brand is some sort of “co-brand"; that the “real brand” is the city brand. These are incredibly fact specific assumptions, and even if the facts are as stated, that creates no obligations or privileges. Furthermore this ignores the issue of generics and other applicants with other issues. I guess there's no pejorative fable to tell about these applicants...
The so-called "current WT5 suggestion" is being "floated" largely by Alexander. In reality, it's a lead balloon and NOT workable. I would "float" a different "WT5 suggestion" as a compromise:
* The status quo did not work and it is not fine. (Perhaps it worked well for the public authorities; there are numerous applicants that had nightmare scenarios (e.g., TATA) * Continue the "intent" limitation in the category “city” and apply the same limitation to subnational regions. (This is a big compromise, since it would really be much more appropriate to deal with these issues on an objection or "after-the-fact" basis)
That is my "reach across the aisle" on this point. I am also passionate about the rights of people and public benefit -- but "geo-uses" does not have a monopoly on either point.
As for looking at "geo-names not previously protected" -- I think it would be far more fruitful to start looking at "after-the-fact" solutions for public authorities that feel they actually have been harmed rather than continuing to try to use blocking privileges as a solution.
Greg
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:05 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Dear Joe,
thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state:
*/“……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around/*
*/ the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….”/*
Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view:
·We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement
·In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely:
oUnesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”)
oISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME>)
oCapital cities
·All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules.
·The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up).
There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations):
·There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms!
·In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility!
·So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them?
·Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use!
·Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city?
·The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included).
·As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise!
·The compromise needs to:
oProtect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains!
oBut to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants!
·I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it:
oIn order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on).
oSo if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important!
oTo reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city).
oSuch cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying!
·The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”!
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
·*Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
·*In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
·*And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!*
The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise.
A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable?
Anyone in?
Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category!
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 *Joe Alagna *Sent:* Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1.Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2.There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
*_MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us <mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us>_** * They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
*_MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov <mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov>_*(or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So…
3.Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a.Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b.Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c.Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4.Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5.There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. /I would agree with that general principal/ since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world.
6.Shouldn’t we _not_ assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a.A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b.A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c.Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d.There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
_______________________________________________ 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
In Greg’s defense, I think he was just responding to a post from Alex. To be sure many people support Alex’s view. And many do not. P Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 9:47 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi Greg. I object to your painting all the positions you disagree with as positions held by Alexander. That's not just misleading, it's false. The positions you disagree are supported by quite a few people. Throwing them all into one box labeled "Alexander says" (you used the name at least 10 times) is a way of discrediting ideas by pinning them on a single individual. It is a well known technique in political discourse when you are trying to discredit someone. Let's not do that here. Marita On 6/25/2018 7:30 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: Joe, I want to clarify some areas where Alexander's characterizations of the group's work to date don't appear correct. In particular: * We have not spent our time discussing practically nothing else than trademark-related issues specifically. We have spent a great deal of time discussing a more general topic -- are place-name meanings somehow superior to ALL other meanings? This includes trademark meanings, surnames, nouns that are not proper nouns (BAR, SPA, ROCK), communities (aside from the community of the place(s) with that name. Casting this as a trademark discussion misses the point entirely. * It is not an accepted concept that the 2012 AGB is the starting point of our work (vs. the policy recommendations that preceded it; after all, this is a "policy development process." It is certainly not a base in the sense of a "floor" changes to the 2012 AGB could go in any direction – and in many cases, there's no agreement on whether any particular change would be an "improvement." · Alexander says the 2012 AGB protected "very few geo names." ISO 3166-2 protected nearly 6,000 names. Capital cities protected roughly 250 names. The UNESCO regions and subregions (ignored by Alexander) add another 35 names (only 2 of which are registered TLDs, contrary to Alexander's email). That's a "protect list" of roughly 6,285 names. I would not call that "very few." Each of these was blocked unless the relevant governmental authorities granted a letter of consent/non-objection (at their sole discretion). Alexander claims "And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules." Nothing could be further from the truth. There have been repeated challenges to continued blocking based on the ISO-3166-2 list. To the extent capital cities have not been challenged, I believe that has been based on the hopeful idea of compromise to reach consensus. Subregion names have not really been discussed one way or the other. Of course, non-capital cities are also protected -- this adds 4,400-50,000 more places, yielding a total between approximately 11,000 names and more than 56,000 names. That certainly cannot be "very few." All of these issues are still open items. So, it's incorrect to say that "The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names.”" There has been a tendency by some to try and close discussions with premature declarations of victory (somehow it never works the other way...). This should be seen in that context. This really has nothing to do with free speech rights of citizens -- if they want a second level domain, they can get one. If their city wants a TLD, they can get one. This is about blocking names from use and giving one or more governments the power to decide what speech will be allowed. This is the opposite of free speech. The idea of giving reservation/blocking rights to governments based on "potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names”" seems like a terrible blow to free speech, a form of "prior restraint" on speech, which is particularly disfavored. Of course, nothing will stop any city from getting a TLD related to their name now, or in the future (even if their first choice is not available). Since this isn't really about "free speech rights for cities" at all, I'll skip responding to those items, except to note that the so-called "free speech" here is a peculiar invention: the ability of citizens "to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name." Since the TLD will not exist because of this rule, the ability to use such a domain name doesn't exist. Similarly, hypotheticals that are full of false assumptions and one sided presumptions intended to paint a David vs. Goliath picture don't need further response, since they do not illustrate any general principle. (As for the good people of Tel Aviv, they would likely prefer "Tel Aviv" in Hebrew.) But it is good to know that Alexander thinks the 2012 rules are "horrible." Alexander dismisses the whole complex issue of "intent" based on a false premise -- that because the registrars will sell the domain names, that the registry's intent regarding the domain name doesn't matter. First, this obviously ignores .brands, who will not be selling domain names at all. Second, there are many cases where TLDs are restricted as to the type and scope of use by registrants -- not least, many .cityname TLDs! Whether brands have rights (which of course they do) is really not an issue here. Brands are not looking to exercise any rights here to stop other applications, nor have brands asserted superior privileges over other legitimate applicants. Again, I won't pick through all of the baseless assumptions and pejorative terms used to cobble together an argument.... But I will say the idea that this is a "culture war" doesn't hold water (and certainly is not how this has been framed generally, if you are looking to catch up on the work of the group. As for the proposed "compromise" -- it's no compromise at all, since it starts with a false premise -- that this is a "free speech" question for "citizens." The idea that the has been "broad support" for the "solution" proposed is similarly incorrect. This is certainly the solution Alexander has repeatedly brought up, but there is no basis to say there is broad support for it (though there is some support). Getting rid of intent limitations without getting rid of blocking privileges is no compromise at all. Once again, this proposal is supported by inaccurate and unsupported statements. Close to zero burden? Applicants would have a higher burden than before -- the requirement to bargain for the blessing of a government even where their intended use is not associated with that place. The assumption that a brand that shares a name with a big city "deliberately chose it" to "profit from the image" of the city and that it's living off of it or "piggybacking' on it is phrased pejoratively, but not in any way proven. Building on this concept, we get into invented concepts without any basis in law or facts: that there are "certain obligations" a brand has to a city it shares a name with; that the brand is some sort of “co-brand"; that the “real brand” is the city brand. These are incredibly fact specific assumptions, and even if the facts are as stated, that creates no obligations or privileges. Furthermore this ignores the issue of generics and other applicants with other issues. I guess there's no pejorative fable to tell about these applicants... The so-called "current WT5 suggestion" is being "floated" largely by Alexander. In reality, it's a lead balloon and NOT workable. I would "float" a different "WT5 suggestion" as a compromise: * The status quo did not work and it is not fine. (Perhaps it worked well for the public authorities; there are numerous applicants that had nightmare scenarios (e.g., TATA) * Continue the "intent" limitation in the category “city” and apply the same limitation to subnational regions. (This is a big compromise, since it would really be much more appropriate to deal with these issues on an objection or "after-the-fact" basis) That is my "reach across the aisle" on this point. I am also passionate about the rights of people and public benefit -- but "geo-uses" does not have a monopoly on either point. As for looking at "geo-names not previously protected" -- I think it would be far more fruitful to start looking at "after-the-fact" solutions for public authorities that feel they actually have been harmed rather than continuing to try to use blocking privileges as a solution. Greg On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:05 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Dear Joe, thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state: “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….” Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view: * We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement * In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely: o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”) o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME) o Capital cities * All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules. * The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up). There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations): * There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms! * In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility! * So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them? * Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use! * Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city? * The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included). * As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise! * The compromise needs to: o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains! o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants! * I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it: o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on). o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important! o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city). o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying! * The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”! So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated: * Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine! * In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause) * And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense! The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise. A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable? Anyone in? Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category! 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 Joe Alagna Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments Hi All, Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment. I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time. These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for: 1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings. The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string. 2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses. These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them. The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this: <mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us> MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like: <mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov> MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So… 3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS? a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process, b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore, 4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power. 5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. I would agree with that general principal since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world. 6. Shouldn’t we not assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved. We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions: a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to. d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general. Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you! Joe Alagna _______________________________________________ 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
Marita, Please don't jump to conclusions. I was responding to Alexander's email, but I didn't want to do "inline" responses, since I find those tendentious and tiresome unless absolutely necessary. So I needed to say what part of his email I was responding to. This was a way to show what I was responding to, but was not in any way an attempt to "discredit" the positions or Alexander. At no point did I say that any of his positions were held only by Alexander. I don't think it's appropriate when we are discussing substantive issues to make claims about how many or how few people support a given position. I will leave it to our co-chairs to deal with which positions are getting "traction" or not or, better yet, where "common ground" can be found. I could say that your email was an attempt to discredit me and the positions I put forward, but that would be silly. I hope you will understand that your perception of my actions and intent was incorrect. Of course, there is no problem with an honest misunderstanding, and I will assume that was all it was. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Hi Greg. I object to your painting all the positions you disagree with as positions held by Alexander. That's not just misleading, it's false. The positions you disagree are supported by quite a few people. Throwing them all into one box labeled "Alexander says" (you used the name at least 10 times) is a way of discrediting ideas by pinning them on a single individual. It is a well known technique in political discourse when you are trying to discredit someone.
Let's not do that here.
Marita
On 6/25/2018 7:30 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Joe,
I want to clarify some areas where Alexander's characterizations of the group's work to date don't appear correct. In particular:
- We have *not* spent our time discussing practically nothing else than trademark-related issues specifically. We *have* spent a great deal of time discussing a more general topic -- are place-name meanings somehow superior to ALL other meanings? This includes trademark meanings, surnames, nouns that are not proper nouns (BAR, SPA, ROCK), communities (aside from the community of the place(s) with that name. Casting this as a trademark discussion misses the point entirely.
- It is not an accepted concept that the 2012 AGB is the starting point of our work (vs. the policy recommendations that preceded it; after all, this is a "policy development process." It is *certainly *not a base in the sense of a "floor" changes to the 2012 AGB could go in any direction – and in many cases, there's no agreement on whether any particular change would be an "improvement."
· Alexander says the 2012 AGB protected "very few geo names." ISO 3166-2 protected nearly 6,000 names. Capital cities protected roughly 250 names. The UNESCO regions and subregions (ignored by Alexander) add another 35 names (only 2 of which are registered TLDs, contrary to Alexander's email). That's a "protect list" of roughly* 6,285* names. I would not call that "very few."
Each of these was blocked unless the relevant governmental authorities granted a letter of consent/non-objection (at their sole discretion). Alexander claims "And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules." *Nothing could be further from the truth.* There have been repeated challenges to continued blocking based on the ISO-3166-2 list. To the extent capital cities have not been challenged, I believe that has been based on the hopeful idea of compromise to reach consensus. Subregion names have not really been discussed one way or the other.
Of course, non-capital cities are also protected -- this adds *4,400-50,000* more places, yielding a total between approximately *11,000* names and more than *56,000* names. That certainly cannot be "very few."
All of these issues are still open items. So, it's incorrect to say that "The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names.”" There has been a tendency by some to try and close discussions with premature declarations of victory (somehow it never works the other way...). This should be seen in that context.
This really has nothing to do with free speech rights of citizens -- if they want a second level domain, they can get one. If their city wants a TLD, they can get one. This is about blocking names from use and giving one or more governments the power to decide what speech will be allowed. This is the opposite of free speech.
The idea of giving reservation/blocking rights to governments based on "potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names”" seems like a terrible blow to free speech, a form of "prior restraint" on speech, which is particularly disfavored. Of course, nothing will stop any city from getting a TLD related to their name now, or in the future (even if their first choice is not available).
Since this isn't really about "free speech rights for cities" at all, I'll skip responding to those items, except to note that the so-called "free speech" here is a peculiar invention: the ability of citizens "to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name." Since the TLD will not exist because of this rule, the ability to use such a domain name doesn't exist.
Similarly, hypotheticals that are full of false assumptions and one sided presumptions intended to paint a David vs. Goliath picture don't need further response, since they do not illustrate any general principle. (As for the good people of Tel Aviv, they would likely prefer "Tel Aviv" in Hebrew.) But it is good to know that Alexander thinks the 2012 rules are "horrible."
Alexander dismisses the whole complex issue of "intent" based on a false premise -- that because the registrars will sell the domain names, that the registry's intent regarding the domain name doesn't matter. First, this obviously ignores .brands, who will not be selling domain names at all. Second, there are many cases where TLDs are restricted as to the type and scope of use by registrants -- not least, many .cityname TLDs!
Whether brands have rights (which of course they do) is really not an issue here. Brands are not looking to exercise any rights here to stop other applications, nor have brands asserted superior privileges over other legitimate applicants. Again, I won't pick through all of the baseless assumptions and pejorative terms used to cobble together an argument.... But I will say the idea that this is a "culture war" doesn't hold water (and certainly is not how this has been framed generally, if you are looking to catch up on the work of the group.
As for the proposed "compromise" -- it's no compromise at all, since it starts with a false premise -- that this is a "free speech" question for "citizens." The idea that the has been "broad support" for the "solution" proposed is similarly incorrect. This is certainly the solution Alexander has repeatedly brought up, but there is no basis to say there is broad support for it (though there is some support). Getting rid of intent limitations without getting rid of blocking privileges is no compromise at all.
Once again, this proposal is supported by inaccurate and unsupported statements.
Close to zero burden? Applicants would have a higher burden than before -- the requirement to bargain for the blessing of a government even where their intended use is not associated with that place.
The assumption that a brand that shares a name with a big city "deliberately chose it" to "profit from the image" of the city and that it's living off of it or "piggybacking' on it is phrased pejoratively, but not in any way proven. Building on this concept, we get into invented concepts without any basis in law or facts: that there are "certain obligations" a brand has to a city it shares a name with; that the brand is some sort of “co-brand"; that the “real brand” is the city brand. These are incredibly fact specific assumptions, and even if the facts are as stated, that creates no obligations or privileges. Furthermore this ignores the issue of generics and other applicants with other issues. I guess there's no pejorative fable to tell about these applicants...
The so-called "current WT5 suggestion" is being "floated" largely by Alexander. In reality, it's a lead balloon and NOT workable. I would "float" a different "WT5 suggestion" as a compromise:
- The status quo did not work and it is not fine. (Perhaps it worked well for the public authorities; there are numerous applicants that had nightmare scenarios (e.g., TATA) - Continue the "intent" limitation in the category “city” and apply the same limitation to subnational regions. (This is a big compromise, since it would really be much more appropriate to deal with these issues on an objection or "after-the-fact" basis)
That is my "reach across the aisle" on this point. I am also passionate about the rights of people and public benefit -- but "geo-uses" does not have a monopoly on either point.
As for looking at "geo-names not previously protected" -- I think it would be far more fruitful to start looking at "after-the-fact" solutions for public authorities that feel they actually have been harmed rather than continuing to try to use blocking privileges as a solution.
Greg
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:05 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Dear Joe,
thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state:
* “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around*
* the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….”*
Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view:
· We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement
· In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely:
o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”)
o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME)
o Capital cities
· All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules.
· The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up).
There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations):
· There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms!
· In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility!
· So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them?
· Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use!
· Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city?
· The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included).
· As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise!
· The compromise needs to:
o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains!
o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants!
· I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it:
o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on).
o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important!
o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city).
o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying!
· The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”!
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
· *Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
· *In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
· *And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!*
The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise.
A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable?
Anyone in?
Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Joe Alagna *Sent:* Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Work Track 5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
*MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us <MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us>*
They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
*MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov <MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov>* (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So…
3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. *I would agree with that general principal* since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world.
6. Shouldn’t we *not* assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Greg -- thank you for the response. Of course, I was not trying to discredit you. But you realize, of course, that e-mails can be easily misinterpreted -- not just by me, but by the couple of hundred people signed up for this discussion. So, I am just seeking caution in this respect. Marita On 6/26/2018 11:54 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Marita,
Please don't jump to conclusions. I was responding to Alexander's email, but I didn't want to do "inline" responses, since I find those tendentious and tiresome unless absolutely necessary. So I needed to say what part of his email I was responding to. This was a way to show what I was responding to, but was not in any way an attempt to "discredit" the positions or Alexander. At no point did I say that any of his positions were held only by Alexander. I don't think it's appropriate when we are discussing substantive issues to make claims about how many or how few people support a given position. I will leave it to our co-chairs to deal with which positions are getting "traction" or not or, better yet, where "common ground" can be found.
I could say that your email was an attempt to discredit me and the positions I put forward, but that would be silly. I hope you will understand that your perception of my actions and intent was incorrect. Of course, there is no problem with an honest misunderstanding, and I will assume that was all it was.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote:
Hi Greg. I object to your painting all the positions you disagree with as positions held by Alexander. That's not just misleading, it's false. The positions you disagree are supported by quite a few people. Throwing them all into one box labeled "Alexander says" (you used the name at least 10 times) is a way of discrediting ideas by pinning them on a single individual. It is a well known technique in political discourse when you are trying to discredit someone.
Let's not do that here.
Marita
On 6/25/2018 7:30 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Joe,
I want to clarify some areas where Alexander's characterizations of the group's work to date don't appear correct. In particular:
* We have *not* spent our time discussing practically nothing else than trademark-related issues specifically. We *have* spent a great deal of time discussing a more general topic -- are place-name meanings somehow superior to ALL other meanings? This includes trademark meanings, surnames, nouns that are not proper nouns (BAR, SPA, ROCK), communities (aside from the community of the place(s) with that name. Casting this as a trademark discussion misses the point entirely.
* It is not an accepted concept that the 2012 AGB is the starting point of our work (vs. the policy recommendations that preceded it; after all, this is a "policy development process." It is *certainly *not a base in the sense of a "floor" changes to the 2012 AGB could go in any direction – and in many cases, there's no agreement on whether any particular change would be an "improvement."
·Alexander says the 2012 AGB protected "very few geo names." ISO 3166-2 protected nearly 6,000 names. Capital cities protected roughly 250 names. The UNESCO regions and subregions (ignored by Alexander) add another 35 names (only 2 of which are registered TLDs, contrary to Alexander's email). That's a "protect list" of roughly*6,285* names. I would not call that "very few."
Each of these was blocked unless the relevant governmental authorities granted a letter of consent/non-objection (at their sole discretion). Alexander claims "And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules." *_Nothing could be further from the truth._* There have been repeated challenges to continued blocking based on the ISO-3166-2 list. To the extent capital cities have not been challenged, I believe that has been based on the hopeful idea of compromise to reach consensus. Subregion names have not really been discussed one way or the other.
Of course, non-capital cities are also protected -- this adds *4,400-50,000* more places, yielding a total between approximately *11,000* names and more than *56,000* names. That certainly cannot be "very few."
All of these issues are still open items. So, it's incorrect to say that "The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names.”" There has been a tendency by some to try and close discussions with premature declarations of victory (somehow it never works the other way...). This should be seen in that context.
This really has nothing to do with free speech rights of citizens -- if they want a second level domain, they can get one. If their city wants a TLD, they can get one. This is about blocking names from use and giving one or more governments the power to decide what speech will be allowed. This is the opposite of free speech.
The idea of giving reservation/blocking rights to governments based on "potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names”" seems like a terrible blow to free speech, a form of "prior restraint" on speech, which is particularly disfavored. Of course, nothing will stop any city from getting a TLD related to their name now, or in the future (even if their first choice is not available).
Since this isn't really about "free speech rights for cities" at all, I'll skip responding to those items, except to note that the so-called "free speech" here is a peculiar invention: the ability of citizens "to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name." Since the TLD will not exist because of this rule, the ability to use such a domain name doesn't exist.
Similarly, hypotheticals that are full of false assumptions and one sided presumptions intended to paint a David vs. Goliath picture don't need further response, since they do not illustrate any general principle. (As for the good people of Tel Aviv, they would likely prefer "Tel Aviv" in Hebrew.)But it is good to know that Alexander thinks the 2012 rules are "horrible."
Alexander dismisses the whole complex issue of "intent" based on a false premise -- that because the registrars will sell the domain names, that the registry's intent regarding the domain name doesn't matter. First, this obviously ignores .brands, who will not be selling domain names at all. Second, there are many cases where TLDs are restricted as to the type and scope of use by registrants -- not least, many .cityname TLDs!
Whether brands have rights (which of course they do) is really not an issue here. Brands are not looking to exercise any rights here to stop other applications, nor have brands asserted superior privileges over other legitimate applicants. Again, I won't pick through all of the baseless assumptions and pejorative terms used to cobble together an argument.... But I will say the idea that this is a "culture war" doesn't hold water (and certainly is not how this has been framed generally, if you are looking to catch up on the work of the group.
As for the proposed "compromise" -- it's no compromise at all, since it starts with a false premise -- that this is a "free speech" question for "citizens." The idea that the has been "broad support" for the "solution" proposed is similarly incorrect. This is certainly the solution Alexander has repeatedly brought up, but there is no basis to say there is broad support for it (though there is some support). Getting rid of intent limitations without getting rid of blocking privileges is no compromise at all.
Once again, this proposal is supported by inaccurate and unsupported statements.
Close to zero burden? Applicants would have a higher burden than before -- the requirement to bargain for the blessing of a government even where their intended use is not associated with that place.
The assumption that a brand that shares a name with a big city "deliberately chose it" to "profit from the image" of the city and that it's living off of it or "piggybacking' on it is phrased pejoratively, but not in any way proven. Building on this concept, we get into invented concepts without any basis in law or facts: that there are "certain obligations" a brand has to a city it shares a name with; that the brand is some sort of “co-brand"; that the “real brand” is the city brand. These are incredibly fact specific assumptions, and even if the facts are as stated, that creates no obligations or privileges. Furthermore this ignores the issue of generics and other applicants with other issues. I guess there's no pejorative fable to tell about these applicants...
The so-called "current WT5 suggestion" is being "floated" largely by Alexander. In reality, it's a lead balloon and NOT workable. I would "float" a different "WT5 suggestion" as a compromise:
* The status quo did not work and it is not fine. (Perhaps it worked well for the public authorities; there are numerous applicants that had nightmare scenarios (e.g., TATA) * Continue the "intent" limitation in the category “city” and apply the same limitation to subnational regions. (This is a big compromise, since it would really be much more appropriate to deal with these issues on an objection or "after-the-fact" basis)
That is my "reach across the aisle" on this point. I am also passionate about the rights of people and public benefit -- but "geo-uses" does not have a monopoly on either point.
As for looking at "geo-names not previously protected" -- I think it would be far more fruitful to start looking at "after-the-fact" solutions for public authorities that feel they actually have been harmed rather than continuing to try to use blocking privileges as a solution.
Greg
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:05 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Dear Joe,
thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state:
*/“……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around/*
*/ the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….”/*
Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view:
·We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement
·In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely:
oUnesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”)
oISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME>)
oCapital cities
·All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules.
·The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up).
There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations):
·There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms!
·In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility!
·So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them?
·Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use!
·Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city?
·The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included).
·As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise!
·The compromise needs to:
oProtect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains!
oBut to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants!
·I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it:
oIn order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on).
oSo if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important!
oTo reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city).
oSuch cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying!
·The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”!
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
·*Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
·*In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
·*And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!*
The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise.
A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable?
Anyone in?
Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category!
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 *Joe Alagna *Sent:* Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1.Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2.There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
*_MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us <mailto:MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us>_** * They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
*_MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov <mailto:MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov>_*(or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So…
3.Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a.Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b.Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c.Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4.Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5.There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. /I would agree with that general principal/ since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world.
6.Shouldn’t we _not_ assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a.A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b.A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c.Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d.There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
Marita, Thank you for helping me clear up any confusion! Greg On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Greg -- thank you for the response. Of course, I was not trying to discredit you. But you realize, of course, that e-mails can be easily misinterpreted -- not just by me, but by the couple of hundred people signed up for this discussion. So, I am just seeking caution in this respect.
Marita
On 6/26/2018 11:54 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Marita,
Please don't jump to conclusions. I was responding to Alexander's email, but I didn't want to do "inline" responses, since I find those tendentious and tiresome unless absolutely necessary. So I needed to say what part of his email I was responding to. This was a way to show what I was responding to, but was not in any way an attempt to "discredit" the positions or Alexander. At no point did I say that any of his positions were held only by Alexander. I don't think it's appropriate when we are discussing substantive issues to make claims about how many or how few people support a given position. I will leave it to our co-chairs to deal with which positions are getting "traction" or not or, better yet, where "common ground" can be found.
I could say that your email was an attempt to discredit me and the positions I put forward, but that would be silly. I hope you will understand that your perception of my actions and intent was incorrect. Of course, there is no problem with an honest misunderstanding, and I will assume that was all it was.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Hi Greg. I object to your painting all the positions you disagree with as positions held by Alexander. That's not just misleading, it's false. The positions you disagree are supported by quite a few people. Throwing them all into one box labeled "Alexander says" (you used the name at least 10 times) is a way of discrediting ideas by pinning them on a single individual. It is a well known technique in political discourse when you are trying to discredit someone.
Let's not do that here.
Marita
On 6/25/2018 7:30 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Joe,
I want to clarify some areas where Alexander's characterizations of the group's work to date don't appear correct. In particular:
- We have *not* spent our time discussing practically nothing else than trademark-related issues specifically. We *have* spent a great deal of time discussing a more general topic -- are place-name meanings somehow superior to ALL other meanings? This includes trademark meanings, surnames, nouns that are not proper nouns (BAR, SPA, ROCK), communities (aside from the community of the place(s) with that name. Casting this as a trademark discussion misses the point entirely.
- It is not an accepted concept that the 2012 AGB is the starting point of our work (vs. the policy recommendations that preceded it; after all, this is a "policy development process." It is *certainly *not a base in the sense of a "floor" changes to the 2012 AGB could go in any direction – and in many cases, there's no agreement on whether any particular change would be an "improvement."
· Alexander says the 2012 AGB protected "very few geo names." ISO 3166-2 protected nearly 6,000 names. Capital cities protected roughly 250 names. The UNESCO regions and subregions (ignored by Alexander) add another 35 names (only 2 of which are registered TLDs, contrary to Alexander's email). That's a "protect list" of roughly* 6,285* names. I would not call that "very few."
Each of these was blocked unless the relevant governmental authorities granted a letter of consent/non-objection (at their sole discretion). Alexander claims "And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules." *Nothing could be further from the truth.* There have been repeated challenges to continued blocking based on the ISO-3166-2 list. To the extent capital cities have not been challenged, I believe that has been based on the hopeful idea of compromise to reach consensus. Subregion names have not really been discussed one way or the other.
Of course, non-capital cities are also protected -- this adds *4,400-50,000* more places, yielding a total between approximately *11,000* names and more than *56,000* names. That certainly cannot be "very few."
All of these issues are still open items. So, it's incorrect to say that "The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names.”" There has been a tendency by some to try and close discussions with premature declarations of victory (somehow it never works the other way...). This should be seen in that context.
This really has nothing to do with free speech rights of citizens -- if they want a second level domain, they can get one. If their city wants a TLD, they can get one. This is about blocking names from use and giving one or more governments the power to decide what speech will be allowed. This is the opposite of free speech.
The idea of giving reservation/blocking rights to governments based on "potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names”" seems like a terrible blow to free speech, a form of "prior restraint" on speech, which is particularly disfavored. Of course, nothing will stop any city from getting a TLD related to their name now, or in the future (even if their first choice is not available).
Since this isn't really about "free speech rights for cities" at all, I'll skip responding to those items, except to note that the so-called "free speech" here is a peculiar invention: the ability of citizens "to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name." Since the TLD will not exist because of this rule, the ability to use such a domain name doesn't exist.
Similarly, hypotheticals that are full of false assumptions and one sided presumptions intended to paint a David vs. Goliath picture don't need further response, since they do not illustrate any general principle. (As for the good people of Tel Aviv, they would likely prefer "Tel Aviv" in Hebrew.) But it is good to know that Alexander thinks the 2012 rules are "horrible."
Alexander dismisses the whole complex issue of "intent" based on a false premise -- that because the registrars will sell the domain names, that the registry's intent regarding the domain name doesn't matter. First, this obviously ignores .brands, who will not be selling domain names at all. Second, there are many cases where TLDs are restricted as to the type and scope of use by registrants -- not least, many .cityname TLDs!
Whether brands have rights (which of course they do) is really not an issue here. Brands are not looking to exercise any rights here to stop other applications, nor have brands asserted superior privileges over other legitimate applicants. Again, I won't pick through all of the baseless assumptions and pejorative terms used to cobble together an argument.... But I will say the idea that this is a "culture war" doesn't hold water (and certainly is not how this has been framed generally, if you are looking to catch up on the work of the group.
As for the proposed "compromise" -- it's no compromise at all, since it starts with a false premise -- that this is a "free speech" question for "citizens." The idea that the has been "broad support" for the "solution" proposed is similarly incorrect. This is certainly the solution Alexander has repeatedly brought up, but there is no basis to say there is broad support for it (though there is some support). Getting rid of intent limitations without getting rid of blocking privileges is no compromise at all.
Once again, this proposal is supported by inaccurate and unsupported statements.
Close to zero burden? Applicants would have a higher burden than before -- the requirement to bargain for the blessing of a government even where their intended use is not associated with that place.
The assumption that a brand that shares a name with a big city "deliberately chose it" to "profit from the image" of the city and that it's living off of it or "piggybacking' on it is phrased pejoratively, but not in any way proven. Building on this concept, we get into invented concepts without any basis in law or facts: that there are "certain obligations" a brand has to a city it shares a name with; that the brand is some sort of “co-brand"; that the “real brand” is the city brand. These are incredibly fact specific assumptions, and even if the facts are as stated, that creates no obligations or privileges. Furthermore this ignores the issue of generics and other applicants with other issues. I guess there's no pejorative fable to tell about these applicants...
The so-called "current WT5 suggestion" is being "floated" largely by Alexander. In reality, it's a lead balloon and NOT workable. I would "float" a different "WT5 suggestion" as a compromise:
- The status quo did not work and it is not fine. (Perhaps it worked well for the public authorities; there are numerous applicants that had nightmare scenarios (e.g., TATA) - Continue the "intent" limitation in the category “city” and apply the same limitation to subnational regions. (This is a big compromise, since it would really be much more appropriate to deal with these issues on an objection or "after-the-fact" basis)
That is my "reach across the aisle" on this point. I am also passionate about the rights of people and public benefit -- but "geo-uses" does not have a monopoly on either point.
As for looking at "geo-names not previously protected" -- I think it would be far more fruitful to start looking at "after-the-fact" solutions for public authorities that feel they actually have been harmed rather than continuing to try to use blocking privileges as a solution.
Greg
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:05 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Dear Joe,
thanks for your contribution! You are stating that you haven’t been actively involved in the past but observed. Have you read all emails and been in all calls? I am asking because you also state:
* “……the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around*
* the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories….”*
Well: For MONTH on end we did practically nothing else than discussing precisely that topic. In endless email exchanges (probably a thousand) and phone conferences. This topic has been THE priority so far. Let me summarize from my view:
· We work off the 2012 AGB as a base – and try to identify areas of improvement
· In the 2012 AGB very few geo names have been protected, namely:
o Unesco regions (irrelevant as all are assigned as gTLD but “.europe”)
o ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national sub regions (which is why .tata wasn’t granted to the Indian TATA and why .bar needed an OK from the region BAR in ME - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:ME)
o Capital cities
· All of the above require a letter if non-objection by the responsible Government authority – independent whether or not the applicant claims geo-use intent or not! And so far nobody has really much challenged these rules.
· The ONLY remaining 2012 AGB geo-name category was “city names” – with “city” not really very precisely defined. In the 2012 AGB applicants for strings identical to a city name needed Government approval (letter if non-objection). The only exception was a declaration of “non-geo name use”. That could be a brand, a generic term, or some “.xyz”-like fun theme: “.heyyou” - which might be an industrial center in China (I made that up).
There are now two main concerns (those of brands vs. those who want to protect the free expression rights of city populations):
· There are potentially hundreds of thousands qualifying “city names” – and there is (as you mentioned) a sizeable overlap with so called “brands and generic terms!
· In the same time the citizens of sizeable and or important cities should have their free speech rights preserved: that is being able to express themselves through a domain name based on their city name – just like in the future most if not all big metropolises will offer that possibility!
· So if somebody would apply for “.telaviv” (officially Jerusalem is the capital of Israel) – but claim “non-geo use” (which might be a ruse) – then according to the 2012 AGB they would be assigned the TLD if there was no competition – OR they could drive up the public auction price in a bidding war against a potential city based non-profit that represents the city’s constituents but has no VC cash! Or worse: a financially strong BRAND could simply outbid the city based application and hijack the TLD! I am quite sure that the good people of Tel Aviv would be very unhappy – and I wonder how you would defend the horrible 2012 AGB rules to them?
· Plus: It doesn’t really matters what the registry “intents” – the registry is not offering domain names to the public, nor is it the registrant. It is the registrars who will offer it is a city gTLD – and it is registrants who will use it for that purpose – and there won’t be any obligation by ICANN to prevent such use!
· Some here claim that “brands” have “rights” – while citizens of cities have none. Others claim that this constitutes a travesty – as most city name based brands are BASED on the connotation with the city – and ICANN’s mission is to foster PUBLIC BENEFIT (as in helping citizens executing their right of free expression) and NOT helping “brands” to squat on city resources! What is more important: the “right” of a small brand – or the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a city?
· The entire thing is a question of “culture” – and like in any OTHER culture war both sides are very divided and each is steadfast convinced to have possession of endless wisdom (me included).
· As this is not an “election” where a “majority” decides what the future culture shall be (essentially picking a “winner” – and creating a big pool of “losers”) – we will need to find an agreeable compromise!
· The compromise needs to:
o Protect as many citizens in as many cities as possible from losing their right of free expression by using city name based domains!
o But to not overprotect that category – because it would put too many burdens on brands and generic term based applicants!
· I am lobbying for a certain workable solution – and it seems there has been broad support for it:
o In order to prevent citizens from losing their free speech and free expression rights permanently we do strike the “non-geo use” clause without replacement! (Don’t get a cardiac arrest – read on).
o So if somebody applies for “.telaviv” and claims it would be a new social network like TWITTER or a “.xyz” clone – they would need to get the city’s approval first – to PROTECT the citizens free speech and free expression rights which are very important!
o To reduce this new burden there should be a “cutoff” implemented: only if the city meets a certain requirement (e.g. in population size) the “non-geo use” would be replaced. In other words: if a tiny city of no special relevance has a name identical to a generic term – applicants for such generic term do NOT have to approach the city government IF there is no intent for geo use! (The Government of such smaller city will STILL have to be approached if the gTLD is intended to serve the city).
o Such cutoff could be a population size – the exact measures would have to be determined! Numbers between 100,000 and 500,000 have been floated, and/or percentages of country size! Once we agree on the cutoff rule; the exact measures could be defined later! First qualifying, then quantifying!
· The outcome would be that brands and generic term based applications have close to zero extra burden to carry; while in the same time the free speech rights and rights of expression for hundreds of Millions of people would be preserved in accordance with ICANN’s mission! In the very rare cases of a brand having deliberately chosen a “big city” name (because they want to profit from the image the citizens of that city have worked hard to create over time) – then sorry: but nobody forced you to piggyback on the city’s fame: your own decision; all legal; but you will still need to meet certain obligations. You are just a “co-brand”; the “real brand” is the city brand; and you are living “off” it. Then go and get their permission! But honestly: if we require only cities with more than e.g. 500k people to be specially extra protected (no “non-geo use clause”) – what is the number of brands impacted? Could somebody run a brand name database against a big city database? And not every single US $200 TM registration is a “brand”!
*So if the 2012 AGB is the base; the current WT5 suggestion is being floated:*
· *Keep everything like it is! It worked and it is fine!*
· *In the category “city”: elevate cities that meet a certain requirement into the same status as subnational regions or capital cities! (Meaning: no non-geo-use clause)*
· *And indeed: a city with 500,000 people should be AS MINIUM as important as the average capital or a subnational region! Why should it be LESS protected, makes no sense!*
The disciples of both faiths are requested to reach over the isle and compromise. It doesn’t work in politics in many countries (I am not singling any particular country out) – it doesn’t work in Religions most of the times. We at ICANN could proof that WE can do it. So let’s simply do it. Both sides have ENDLESSLY often explained their views (and I am guilty of having done so one too often: apologies! I am passionate when it comes to rights of people and public benefit!). Now it is time to form the compromise.
A simple to implement suggestion has been made. Is it workable?
Anyone in?
Btw: we are talking CITY names. Once we have a solution for that specific category we can look at geo name categories previously not protected. But that will be a SEPARATE category – and should not be conflated with the city name category!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bo unces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Joe Alagna *Sent:* Friday, June 22, 2018 9:12 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Work Track 5 < gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Hi All,
Although, because of time obligations, I have not commented, I have been an observer of this track since the beginning and recently converted to member so I could make a comment.
I would like to pose several questions and considerations. Please accept my apologies if some of my comments have already been discussed since I have been unable to join the telephonic discussions. I have perused the ongoing document you are developing within the limits of my time.
These questions and considerations are meant in the spirit of contributing and stimulating discussion, not necessarily advocating a position. The work you are doing is important. Please note that these are my own observations and comments, not necessarily reflective of the company I work for:
1. Some members are advocating to reserve city and territory names as rights or even as owned by the cities or territories. I’ve always understood city and territory names as tools to be used by the public for geographic purposes. In fact, unless I missed it (I may have), the discussions seem to have only mildly addressed the thousands of business names around the world that are trademarked, that already contain geographic names, cities and territories. You can look at any database of trademarks from any jurisdiction around the world and likely find hundreds of existing trademarks that contain geographic strings. Strings like this are highly important as parts of business names, identifying the locations of service areas for example. These include names like Swiss Air and American Telephone and Telegraph. I use that second example to show how long-standing this tradition is. This fact seems unacknowledged so far in our discussions. I fear that we are ignoring a hundred years + of tradition and precedence. It may be an important exercise to see how many trademarks already exist in various places that contain geo-type strings.
The history of registries suggests that they may either be public or private, so it seems that the principal of neutrality is important when considering the type of entity applying for a string.
2. There is a theme of debate about who gets preference regarding geographic indicators in new strings, government entities or private entities. My experience, at least in the United States is that many government entities do not care about their geographic names (and for that matter, their email addresses). They seem to be perfectly happy using what I would consider seriously outdated URLs and email addresses.
These government entities already have the right to use a .gov (or a .edu) domain name and email address, a right that any private citizen or public company does not have. Yet they prefer not to use them.
The example I have in mind is the several thousand public schools across the United States who prefer to continue using long URLS and email addresses in the .edu or .us space. A very typical teacher or administrative email address looks like this:
*MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us <MyKidTeachersFirstName.LastName@LaUnifiedSchoolDistrict.k12.ca.us>*
They don’t seem to want to change this. Wouldn’t it be better and more convenient for them to use something like:
*MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov <MyKidsTeachersName@LAUnified.gov>* (or .edu) anything less than a fourth level domain name? So…
3. Should not ICANN remain completely unbiased as to who gets the ability to apply for specific strings related to names in the DNS?
a. Since many government, city, and territorial entities are not engaged nor involved in this process,
b. Since both private and public entities can be good or evil, and
c. Since ICANN has a charter of a bottom up, community driven, process, not the creation of laws or rights
Why should ICANN, in any way confer a preference to either type of entity? In fact, some in this discussion seem to be suggesting an assumed “ownership” of TLD strings, a right that I think can only be conferred on a hyper local level by the proper legal entities, certainly not ICANN, therefore,
4. Shouldn’t we be careful not to try to confer preferences or “rights” at all? In fact, shouldn’t we not even try that? It seems that we do not, and probably should not have that power.
5. There has been discussion that any applicant should comply with local laws in areas, cities, or territories where a string name where they would like to do work is relevant. *I would agree with that general principal* since it respects local laws, makes sense, and doesn’t try to rule the world.
6. Shouldn’t we *not* assume that every government entity around the world cares about what we are doing here. In fact, I am sure that most don’t care – at least as much as we do. If they did care, they would be involved.
We know that TLDs are important and we should care about and anticipate how geographic names affect cities and territories around the world. We should also care about how a country, city, or territory’s rights will affect any applicant in the future. But we should not show a preference in our policy, therefore, four suggestions:
a. A general preference for non-objection from geo-entities and curative solutions in policy over preventive solutions for potential geographic strings; not assuming preferences that more often than not, don't exist
b. A more conservative approach to our scope in terms of the places we define
c. Recognizing that our contracts are time limited – We should recognize that our contracts are for a specified period, at the end of which, a government entity may have the option of becoming engaged and maybe add something to the contract that specifies this rather than an assumption of renewal for applicants. This would allow for worthwhile private investment (maybe a five or ten-year period) and allow review by any public entity after a period of time, to become involved if they then care to.
d. There should be no limits on how many applications may be filed on behalf of a single entity (private, corporate, or government). If we do this, here also, we limit the capital involved in the process and we limit the chances for success of applicants and of this program in general.
Finally, thank you to all of you, on all sides, for your discussion and participation. I believe this discussion is an important one and I know the sacrifice you are making in terms of your time. I only wish I was able to contribute near as much time as all of you have. Thank you!
Joe Alagna
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
participants (17)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Annebeth Lange -
Carlos Raul Gutierrez -
Christa Taylor -
Greg Shatan -
Heather Forrest -
Jaap Akkerhuis -
Javier Rua -
Joe Alagna -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH -
Liz Williams -
Marita Moll -
Maureen Hilyard -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Susan Payne -
Yrjö Länsipuro