Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
Dear WT5 colleagues, I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions. In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I’ll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a ‘Globally Protected Marks List’ (often referred to then as ‘GPML’) was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection. Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN’s then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: ‘The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.’ ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pd... ) Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision. Best wishes, Heather Forrest ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org> Dear all, Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org if you would like to change your status from observer to member. *Mp3: * https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent- track5-06jun18-en.mp3 *Adobe Connect recording: *https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/ <https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b...> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/ Main wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Well put Heather. I remember the IRT discussions on GPML and it’s a good analogy. Whilst GPML was ultimately rejected for trade mark owners however some additional protection mechanisms at the second level were approved (TMCH, URS). I know there are other groups looking at how that all panned out in practice, but additional protections were certainly agreed to be a valid concern given the potential massive expansion of gTLDs. When it comes to city names (especially capitals) and where use is intended as a forum or online representation of a community I continue to believe that there should be something in the rule book as per the 2012 round. I know the CPE mechanisms were in part designed to address this and ensure that in a contention situation the community application would score higher and avoid the need for an auction, but that in practice was very complex to the point that it could be argued it defeated its purpose. And of course it relies on there being an application or at the very least some awareness of the gTLDs process, something which is not a given for some communities or parts of the world. I still think (based on direct experience with Wales and London) that the non-objection process whilst imperfect might be the least bad solution vs others currently on the table. But I don’t support widening the category of terms subject to non objection – ISO regions, capitals city names (although not in every language) plus city names where the use is intended for that city/ community is sufficient. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: 08 June 2018 07:16 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June Dear WT5 colleagues, I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions. In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I’ll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a ‘Globally Protected Marks List’ (often referred to then as ‘GPML’) was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection. Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN’s then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: ‘The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.’ (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pd...) Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision. Best wishes, Heather Forrest ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Dear all, Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/<https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b592ccc21320b2067715609560b344fb59191929d07b3045> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/ Main wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri _______________________________________________ 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 appreciate Nick and Heather’s points very much. I think we can do better than “least bad”. I have always said that consensus based decision-making comes up with the "least intolerable” solutions that all parties can manage to agree on. However, now is the time to do better than 2007 policy recommendations (which many of us spent years getting to) and 2012 implementation of those policies (which many of us then had to live with and which were not ideal). If we have to take longer and think harder and do better to come up with policy recommendations that are turned into a new AGB 20XX then so be it. Hopefully key inputs from people like Heather can help us get to fact-based future-proof principles that are robust enough to withstand multiple challenges in an evaluation process. The proof of the pudding will be applications which become new TLD labels that users can make a part of an every day Internet life. 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 8 Jun 2018, at 5:26 pm, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Well put Heather. I remember the IRT discussions on GPML and it’s a good analogy. Whilst GPML was ultimately rejected for trade mark owners however some additional protection mechanisms at the second level were approved (TMCH, URS). I know there are other groups looking at how that all panned out in practice, but additional protections were certainly agreed to be a valid concern given the potential massive expansion of gTLDs. When it comes to city names (especially capitals) and where use is intended as a forum or online representation of a community I continue to believe that there should be something in the rule book as per the 2012 round. I know the CPE mechanisms were in part designed to address this and ensure that in a contention situation the community application would score higher and avoid the need for an auction, but that in practice was very complex to the point that it could be argued it defeated its purpose. And of course it relies on there being an application or at the very least some awareness of the gTLDs process, something which is not a given for some communities or parts of the world. I still think (based on direct experience with Wales and London) that the non-objection process whilst imperfect might be the least bad solution vs others currently on the table. But I don’t support widening the category of terms subject to non objection – ISO regions, capitals city names (although not in every language) plus city names where the use is intended for that city/ community is sufficient. Best wishes Nick From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: 08 June 2018 07:16 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June Dear WT5 colleagues, I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions. In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I’ll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a ‘Globally Protected Marks List’ (often referred to then as ‘GPML’) was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection. Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN’s then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: ‘The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.’ (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pd...) Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision. Best wishes, Heather Forrest ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Dear all, Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/<https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b592ccc21320b2067715609560b344fb59191929d07b3045> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/ Main wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri _______________________________________________ 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 think we can put a first level of acceptance and agree on how we move. We may never know what other situations may crop up in the future. I suggest we come to terms and agree on a first way forward and then we may revisit other situations as they crop up. We cannot please everyone at this stage, else we will never end the discussions. We cannot also find the solutions for everything at this stage and i would say we need to move ahead with a preliminary agreement and see through this situation. Else we will never ever move towards a solution. Nothing will be perfect but it will be important to keep in mind many of the suggestions etc., to be taken up as and when. That is my take. I am only saying this because at this stage no matter what we do or decide we will never formulate something that fits all issues. Let’s agree on a first stage way forward so we do not stall the discussions but we note on a report that suggests all other issues raised as a problem statement and move ahead to clear the first line. We need to move into something than nothing. My two cents. Kris
On Jun 8, 2018, at 11:26, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> wrote:
Well put Heather. I remember the IRT discussions on GPML and it’s a good analogy.
Whilst GPML was ultimately rejected for trade mark owners however some additional protection mechanisms at the second level were approved (TMCH, URS). I know there are other groups looking at how that all panned out in practice, but additional protections were certainly agreed to be a valid concern given the potential massive expansion of gTLDs.
When it comes to city names (especially capitals) and where use is intended as a forum or online representation of a community I continue to believe that there should be something in the rule book as per the 2012 round. I know the CPE mechanisms were in part designed to address this and ensure that in a contention situation the community application would score higher and avoid the need for an auction, but that in practice was very complex to the point that it could be argued it defeated its purpose. And of course it relies on there being an application or at the very least some awareness of the gTLDs process, something which is not a given for some communities or parts of the world.
I still think (based on direct experience with Wales and London) that the non-objection process whilst imperfect might be the least bad solution vs others currently on the table. But I don’t support widening the category of terms subject to non objection – ISO regions, capitals city names (although not in every language) plus city names where the use is intended for that city/ community is sufficient.
Best wishes Nick
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: 08 June 2018 07:16 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
Dear WT5 colleagues,
I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions.
In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I’ll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a ‘Globally Protected Marks List’ (often referred to then as ‘GPML’) was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection.
Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN’s then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: ‘The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.’ (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pd... <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pd...>)
Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision.
Best wishes,
Heather Forrest
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>
Dear all, <>
Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC.
Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ <https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ>
As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member.
Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3 <https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3>
Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/ <https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b...> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/ <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/>
Main wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw <https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw>
Thank you. Kind regards,
Terri
_______________________________________________ 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>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
+1 Kris On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:18 PM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> wrote:
I think we can put a first level of acceptance and agree on how we move. We may never know what other situations may crop up in the future. I suggest we come to terms and agree on a first way forward and then we may revisit other situations as they crop up. We cannot please everyone at this stage, else we will never end the discussions.
We cannot also find the solutions for everything at this stage and i would say we need to move ahead with a preliminary agreement and see through this situation. Else we will never ever move towards a solution. Nothing will be perfect but it will be important to keep in mind many of the suggestions etc., to be taken up as and when.
That is my take. I am only saying this because at this stage no matter what we do or decide we will never formulate something that fits all issues. Let’s agree on a first stage way forward so we do not stall the discussions but we note on a report that suggests all other issues raised as a problem statement and move ahead to clear the first line. We need to move into something than nothing.
My two cents.
Kris
On Jun 8, 2018, at 11:26, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> wrote:
Well put Heather. I remember the IRT discussions on GPML and it’s a good analogy.
Whilst GPML was ultimately rejected for trade mark owners however some additional protection mechanisms at the second level were approved (TMCH, URS). I know there are other groups looking at how that all panned out in practice, but additional protections were certainly agreed to be a valid concern given the potential massive expansion of gTLDs.
When it comes to city names (especially capitals) and where use is intended as a forum or online representation of a community I continue to believe that there should be something in the rule book as per the 2012 round. I know the CPE mechanisms were in part designed to address this and ensure that in a contention situation the community application would score higher and avoid the need for an auction, but that in practice was very complex to the point that it could be argued it defeated its purpose. And of course it relies on there being an application or at the very least some awareness of the gTLDs process, something which is not a given for some communities or parts of the world.
I still think (based on direct experience with Wales and London) that the non-objection process whilst imperfect might be the least bad solution vs others currently on the table. But I don’t support widening the category of terms subject to non objection – ISO regions, capitals city names (although not in every language) plus city names where the use is intended for that city/ community is sufficient.
Best wishes Nick
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Heather Forrest *Sent:* 08 June 2018 07:16 *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
Dear WT5 colleagues,
I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions.
In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I’ll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a ‘Globally Protected Marks List’ (often referred to then as ‘GPML’) was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection.
Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN’s then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: ‘The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.’ (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pdf)
Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision.
Best wishes,
Heather Forrest
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Terri Agnew* <terri.agnew@icann.org> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>
Dear all,
Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC.
Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ
As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org if you would like to change your status from observer to member.
*Mp3: * https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent- track5-06jun18-en.mp3
*Adobe Connect recording: *https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/ <https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b...>
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/
Main wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw
Thank you. Kind regards,
Terri
_______________________________________________ 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
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com
- www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear All I disagree tidally with the idea that the notion of Agreement / non objection to be abandoned This is an important issue to respect the identity, historical heritage,culture Customs and ..... of the people residing or associated with a geo name Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Jun 2018, at 10:18, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> wrote:
I think we can put a first level of acceptance and agree on how we move. We may never know what other situations may crop up in the future. I suggest we come to terms and agree on a first way forward and then we may revisit other situations as they crop up. We cannot please everyone at this stage, else we will never end the discussions.
We cannot also find the solutions for everything at this stage and i would say we need to move ahead with a preliminary agreement and see through this situation. Else we will never ever move towards a solution. Nothing will be perfect but it will be important to keep in mind many of the suggestions etc., to be taken up as and when.
That is my take. I am only saying this because at this stage no matter what we do or decide we will never formulate something that fits all issues. Let’s agree on a first stage way forward so we do not stall the discussions but we note on a report that suggests all other issues raised as a problem statement and move ahead to clear the first line. We need to move into something than nothing.
My two cents.
Kris
On Jun 8, 2018, at 11:26, Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> wrote:
Well put Heather. I remember the IRT discussions on GPML and it’s a good analogy.
Whilst GPML was ultimately rejected for trade mark owners however some additional protection mechanisms at the second level were approved (TMCH, URS). I know there are other groups looking at how that all panned out in practice, but additional protections were certainly agreed to be a valid concern given the potential massive expansion of gTLDs.
When it comes to city names (especially capitals) and where use is intended as a forum or online representation of a community I continue to believe that there should be something in the rule book as per the 2012 round. I know the CPE mechanisms were in part designed to address this and ensure that in a contention situation the community application would score higher and avoid the need for an auction, but that in practice was very complex to the point that it could be argued it defeated its purpose. And of course it relies on there being an application or at the very least some awareness of the gTLDs process, something which is not a given for some communities or parts of the world.
I still think (based on direct experience with Wales and London) that the non-objection process whilst imperfect might be the least bad solution vs others currently on the table. But I don’t support widening the category of terms subject to non objection – ISO regions, capitals city names (although not in every language) plus city names where the use is intended for that city/ community is sufficient.
Best wishes Nick
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: 08 June 2018 07:16 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
Dear WT5 colleagues,
I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions.
In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I’ll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a ‘Globally Protected Marks List’ (often referred to then as ‘GPML’) was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection.
Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN’s then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: ‘The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.’ (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pd...)
Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision.
Best wishes,
Heather Forrest
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>
Dear all,
Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC.
Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ
As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org if you would like to change your status from observer to member.
Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3
Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/
Main wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw
Thank you. Kind regards,
Terri
_______________________________________________ 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
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear colleagues, Risking to repeat myself: * The base for our discussions is the 2012 AGB; NOT a “blank page” * The 2012 AGB distinguished between CATEGOGIES! * The categories “UN Regions and 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions” seem relatively undisputed * So does the treatment of capital cities: All of these do not provide for a “non-geo use” provision! * The ONLY other “category” was “cities” * And for these there is a non-geo use provision Seemingly we now have two relatively simplistic tasks: 1. Asking ourselves what the “objective criteria” might be that would equate a SIZEABLE city with the above categories! Undoubtedly a Million people city community needs AT MINIMUM to be looped in when some “brand” wants to hijack the name on DNS top level. Anybody who tries to tell me that the “trade mark rights” of a “brand” are outweighing those of 1 Million people earns my complete rejection. Sorry. The question is what the criteria would be to lift a city into the same category as capital cities or 3166 subnational regions. 2. OUTSIDE of regulating the city category we MIGHT discuss other potential geo categories. But let’s not conflate both categories. Let’s focus. Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Freitag, 8. Juni 2018 09:16 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June Dear WT5 colleagues, I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions. In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I’ll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a ‘Globally Protected Marks List’ (often referred to then as ‘GPML’) was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection. Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN’s then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: ‘The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.’ (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pd...) Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision. Best wishes, Heather Forrest ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org> > Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> " <gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> > Dear all, Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> gnso-secs@icann.org if you would like to change your status from observer to member. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b...> https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/ Main wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri _______________________________________________ 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 think this is a practical way forward. Let's start talking about a manageable "size of city" category that would not require an army of people to maintain, for starters. I imagine population is the easiest way to go. But maybe there are better ideas. Marita Moll On 6/8/2018 12:44 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Risking to repeat myself:
·The base for our discussions is the 2012 AGB; NOT a “blank page”
·The 2012 AGB distinguished between CATEGOGIES!
·The categories “UN Regions and 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions” seem relatively undisputed
·So does the treatment of capital cities: All of these do not provide for a “non-geo use” provision!
·The ONLY other “category” was “cities”
·And for these there is a non-geo use provision
Seemingly we now have two relatively simplistic tasks:
1.Asking ourselves what the “objective criteria” might be that would equate a SIZEABLE city with the above categories! Undoubtedly a Million people city community needs AT MINIMUM to be looped in when some “brand” wants to hijack the name on DNS top level. Anybody who tries to tell me that the “trade mark rights” of a “brand” are outweighing those of 1 Million people earns my complete rejection. Sorry. The question is what the criteria would be to lift a city into the same category as capital cities or 3166 subnational regions.
2.OUTSIDE of regulating the city category we MIGHT discuss other potential geo categories. But let’s not conflate both categories. Let’s focus.
Thanks,
Alexander.berlin
*From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Heather Forrest *Sent:* Freitag, 8. Juni 2018 09:16 *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
Dear WT5 colleagues,
I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions.
In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I’ll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a ‘Globally Protected Marks List’ (often referred to then as ‘GPML’) was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection.
Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN’s then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy.^He concluded: ‘The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.’^ (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pd...)
Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision.
Best wishes,
Heather Forrest
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Terri Agnew* <terri.agnew@icann.org <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>
Dear all,
Please find the attendanceand Adobe Connect chatof the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call heldonWednesday,06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC.
Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ
As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member.
**
*Mp3: *https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3
*Adobe Connect recording: *https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/ <https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b...>
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/
Main wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri
_______________________________________________ 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 All, I concur with Marita statement +1 Kind Regards Poncelet On 8 June 2018 at 18:36, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
I think this is a practical way forward. Let's start talking about a manageable "size of city" category that would not require an army of people to maintain, for starters. I imagine population is the easiest way to go. But maybe there are better ideas.
Marita Moll
On 6/8/2018 12:44 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Risking to repeat myself:
· The base for our discussions is the 2012 AGB; NOT a “blank page”
· The 2012 AGB distinguished between CATEGOGIES!
· The categories “UN Regions and 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions” seem relatively undisputed
· So does the treatment of capital cities: All of these do not provide for a “non-geo use” provision!
· The ONLY other “category” was “cities”
· And for these there is a non-geo use provision
Seemingly we now have two relatively simplistic tasks:
1. Asking ourselves what the “objective criteria” might be that would equate a SIZEABLE city with the above categories! Undoubtedly a Million people city community needs AT MINIMUM to be looped in when some “brand” wants to hijack the name on DNS top level. Anybody who tries to tell me that the “trade mark rights” of a “brand” are outweighing those of 1 Million people earns my complete rejection. Sorry. The question is what the criteria would be to lift a city into the same category as capital cities or 3166 subnational regions.
2. OUTSIDE of regulating the city category we MIGHT discuss other potential geo categories. But let’s not conflate both categories. Let’s focus.
Thanks,
Alexander.berlin
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Heather Forrest *Sent:* Freitag, 8. Juni 2018 09:16 *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
Dear WT5 colleagues,
I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions.
In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I’ll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a ‘Globally Protected Marks List’ (often referred to then as ‘GPML’) was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection.
Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN’s then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: ‘The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.’ (https://www.icann.org/en/ system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pdf)
Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision.
Best wishes,
Heather Forrest
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Terri Agnew* <terri.agnew@icann.org> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>
Dear all,
Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC.
Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ
As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org if you would like to change your status from observer to member.
*Mp3: * https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent- track5-06jun18-en.mp3
*Adobe Connect recording: *https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/ <https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b...>
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/
Main wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ <http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
+1 Marita On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
I think this is a practical way forward. Let's start talking about a manageable "size of city" category that would not require an army of people to maintain, for starters. I imagine population is the easiest way to go. But maybe there are better ideas.
Marita Moll
On 6/8/2018 12:44 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Risking to repeat myself:
· The base for our discussions is the 2012 AGB; NOT a “blank page”
· The 2012 AGB distinguished between CATEGOGIES!
· The categories “UN Regions and 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions” seem relatively undisputed
· So does the treatment of capital cities: All of these do not provide for a “non-geo use” provision!
· The ONLY other “category” was “cities”
· And for these there is a non-geo use provision
Seemingly we now have two relatively simplistic tasks:
1. Asking ourselves what the “objective criteria” might be that would equate a SIZEABLE city with the above categories! Undoubtedly a Million people city community needs AT MINIMUM to be looped in when some “brand” wants to hijack the name on DNS top level. Anybody who tries to tell me that the “trade mark rights” of a “brand” are outweighing those of 1 Million people earns my complete rejection. Sorry. The question is what the criteria would be to lift a city into the same category as capital cities or 3166 subnational regions.
2. OUTSIDE of regulating the city category we MIGHT discuss other potential geo categories. But let’s not conflate both categories. Let’s focus.
Thanks,
Alexander.berlin
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Heather Forrest *Sent:* Freitag, 8. Juni 2018 09:16 *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
Dear WT5 colleagues,
I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions.
In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I’ll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a ‘Globally Protected Marks List’ (often referred to then as ‘GPML’) was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection.
Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN’s then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: ‘The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.’ (https://www.icann.org/en/ system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pdf)
Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision.
Best wishes,
Heather Forrest
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Terri Agnew* <terri.agnew@icann.org> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>
Dear all,
Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC.
Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ
As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org if you would like to change your status from observer to member.
*Mp3: * https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent- track5-06jun18-en.mp3
*Adobe Connect recording: *https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/ <https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b...>
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/
Main wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear all As I mentioned in the last call I feel it is best to respect subsidiarity and hence defer to local laws and policies on what is a city. Each country has its own definitions - hence it would be arbitrary trying to impose one-size-fits-all from here. The advisory panel suggested and/or a database linking to the aprox. 195 definitions and sets of city-lists would probably not be too difficult to be established and would provide applicants with a heightened level of certainty. hope this helps Jorge ________________________________ Von: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 21:20:41 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June +1 Marita On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: I think this is a practical way forward. Let's start talking about a manageable "size of city" category that would not require an army of people to maintain, for starters. I imagine population is the easiest way to go. But maybe there are better ideas. Marita Moll On 6/8/2018 12:44 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear colleagues, Risking to repeat myself: • The base for our discussions is the 2012 AGB; NOT a “blank page” • The 2012 AGB distinguished between CATEGOGIES! • The categories “UN Regions and 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions” seem relatively undisputed • So does the treatment of capital cities: All of these do not provide for a “non-geo use” provision! • The ONLY other “category” was “cities” • And for these there is a non-geo use provision Seemingly we now have two relatively simplistic tasks: 1. Asking ourselves what the “objective criteria” might be that would equate a SIZEABLE city with the above categories! Undoubtedly a Million people city community needs AT MINIMUM to be looped in when some “brand” wants to hijack the name on DNS top level. Anybody who tries to tell me that the “trade mark rights” of a “brand” are outweighing those of 1 Million people earns my complete rejection. Sorry. The question is what the criteria would be to lift a city into the same category as capital cities or 3166 subnational regions. 2. OUTSIDE of regulating the city category we MIGHT discuss other potential geo categories. But let’s not conflate both categories. Let’s focus. Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Freitag, 8. Juni 2018 09:16 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June Dear WT5 colleagues, I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions. In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I’ll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a ‘Globally Protected Marks List’ (often referred to then as ‘GPML’) was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection. Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN’s then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: ‘The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.’ (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pd...) Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision. Best wishes, Heather Forrest ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Dear all, Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/<https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b592ccc21320b2067715609560b344fb59191929d07b3045> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/ Main wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri _______________________________________________ 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 in agreement with Jorge! We should consider a relative definition of the local laws, like considering each of the Swiss Cantons having its own capital city, however tiny (Luzern 'watch my spelling´ with 81,057 inhabitants (2015). If afterwards, Córdoba Spain (inhab. 326,609 (2016) but founded 784 A.D.) happens to be smaller than Córdoba Argentina (inhab. 1.391 million (2010) we can talk...... --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez El 2018-06-08 13:48, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch escribió:
Dear all As I mentioned in the last call I feel it is best to respect subsidiarity and hence defer to local laws and policies on what is a city. Each country has its own definitions - hence it would be arbitrary trying to impose one-size-fits-all from here. The advisory panel suggested and/or a database linking to the aprox. 195 definitions and sets of city-lists would probably not be too difficult to be established and would provide applicants with a heightened level of certainty. hope this helps Jorge
________________________________
Von: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 21:20:41 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
+1 Marita
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: I think this is a practical way forward. Let's start talking about a manageable "size of city" category that would not require an army of people to maintain, for starters. I imagine population is the easiest way to go. But maybe there are better ideas.
Marita Moll
On 6/8/2018 12:44 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear colleagues,
Risking to repeat myself:
* The base for our discussions is the 2012 AGB; NOT a "blank page"
* The 2012 AGB distinguished between CATEGOGIES!
* The categories "UN Regions and 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions" seem relatively undisputed
* So does the treatment of capital cities: All of these do not provide for a "non-geo use" provision!
* The ONLY other "category" was "cities"
* And for these there is a non-geo use provision
Seemingly we now have two relatively simplistic tasks:
1. Asking ourselves what the "objective criteria" might be that would equate a SIZEABLE city with the above categories! Undoubtedly a Million people city community needs AT MINIMUM to be looped in when some "brand" wants to hijack the name on DNS top level. Anybody who tries to tell me that the "trade mark rights" of a "brand" are outweighing those of 1 Million people earns my complete rejection. Sorry. The question is what the criteria would be to lift a city into the same category as capital cities or 3166 subnational regions.
2. OUTSIDE of regulating the city category we MIGHT discuss other potential geo categories. But let's not conflate both categories. Let's focus.
Thanks,
Alexander.berlin
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Freitag, 8. Juni 2018 09:16 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
Dear WT5 colleagues, I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions. In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I'll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a 'Globally Protected Marks List' (often referred to then as 'GPML') was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection. Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN's then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: 'The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.' (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pd...) Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision. Best wishes, Heather Forrest ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>
Dear all,
Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC.
Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ
As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member.
Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3
Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/<https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b592ccc21320b2067715609560b344fb59191929d07b3045>
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/
Main wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri
_______________________________________________ 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
Cordoba Spain actually dates back to Roman times ;-) As to definitions of city in Switzerland there is a good explanation here: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-r... <https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-releases.assetdetail.38628.html>(according to which there are 162 cities in Switzerland) best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 22:09:03 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>, mmoll@ca.inter.net <mmoll@ca.inter.net>, gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June I'm in agreement with Jorge! We should consider a relative definition of the local laws, like considering each of the Swiss Cantons having its own capital city, however tiny (Luzern 'watch my spelling´ with 81,057 inhabitants (2015). If afterwards, Córdoba Spain (inhab. 326,609 (2016) but founded 784 A.D.) happens to be smaller than Córdoba Argentina (inhab. 1.391 million (2010) we can talk...... --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez El 2018-06-08 13:48, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch escribió: Dear all As I mentioned in the last call I feel it is best to respect subsidiarity and hence defer to local laws and policies on what is a city. Each country has its own definitions - hence it would be arbitrary trying to impose one-size-fits-all from here. The advisory panel suggested and/or a database linking to the aprox. 195 definitions and sets of city-lists would probably not be too difficult to be established and would provide applicants with a heightened level of certainty. hope this helps Jorge ________________________________ Von: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 21:20:41 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> 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] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June +1 Marita On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>> wrote: I think this is a practical way forward. Let's start talking about a manageable "size of city" category that would not require an army of people to maintain, for starters. I imagine population is the easiest way to go. But maybe there are better ideas. Marita Moll On 6/8/2018 12:44 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear colleagues, Risking to repeat myself: • The base for our discussions is the 2012 AGB; NOT a "blank page" • The 2012 AGB distinguished between CATEGOGIES! • The categories "UN Regions and 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions" seem relatively undisputed • So does the treatment of capital cities: All of these do not provide for a "non-geo use" provision! • The ONLY other "category" was "cities" • And for these there is a non-geo use provision Seemingly we now have two relatively simplistic tasks: 1. Asking ourselves what the "objective criteria" might be that would equate a SIZEABLE city with the above categories! Undoubtedly a Million people city community needs AT MINIMUM to be looped in when some "brand" wants to hijack the name on DNS top level. Anybody who tries to tell me that the "trade mark rights" of a "brand" are outweighing those of 1 Million people earns my complete rejection. Sorry. The question is what the criteria would be to lift a city into the same category as capital cities or 3166 subnational regions. 2. OUTSIDE of regulating the city category we MIGHT discuss other potential geo categories. But let's not conflate both categories. Let's focus. Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Freitag, 8. Juni 2018 09:16 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June Dear WT5 colleagues, I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions. In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I'll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a 'Globally Protected Marks List' (often referred to then as 'GPML') was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection. Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN's then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: 'The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.' (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pd...) Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision. Best wishes, Heather Forrest ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org><mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>>> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>> Dear all, Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/<https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b592ccc21320b2067715609560b344fb59191929d07b3045> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/ Main wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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
Interesting example -- Cordoba (Spain/Argentina). Well, maybe, in cases like that, age trumps size. I could live with that because really, how many of these are there likely to be? Marita Moll On 6/8/2018 4:17 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Cordoba Spain actually dates back to Roman times ;-)
As to definitions of city in Switzerland there is a good explanation here: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-r... <https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-releases.assetdetail.38628.html>(according to which there are 162 cities in Switzerland)
best
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 22:09:03 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>, mmoll@ca.inter.net <mmoll@ca.inter.net>, gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
I'm in agreement with Jorge!
We should consider a relative definition of the local laws, like considering each of the Swiss Cantons having its own capital city, however tiny (Luzern 'watch my spelling´ with 81,057 inhabitants (2015).
If afterwards, Córdoba Spain (inhab. 326,609 (2016) but founded 784 A.D.) happens to be smaller than Córdoba Argentina (inhab. 1.391 million (2010) we can talk......
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
El 2018-06-08 13:48, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch escribió:
Dear all As I mentioned in the last call I feel it is best to respect subsidiarity and hence defer to local laws and policies on what is a city. Each country has its own definitions - hence it would be arbitrary trying to impose one-size-fits-all from here. The advisory panel suggested and/or a database linking to the aprox. 195 definitions and sets of city-lists would probably not be too difficult to be established and would provide applicants with a heightened level of certainty. hope this helps Jorge
________________________________
Von: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 21:20:41 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> 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] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
+1 Marita
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>> wrote: I think this is a practical way forward. Let's start talking about a manageable "size of city" category that would not require an army of people to maintain, for starters. I imagine population is the easiest way to go. But maybe there are better ideas.
Marita Moll
On 6/8/2018 12:44 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear colleagues,
Risking to repeat myself:
• The base for our discussions is the 2012 AGB; NOT a "blank page"
• The 2012 AGB distinguished between CATEGOGIES!
• The categories "UN Regions and 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions" seem relatively undisputed
• So does the treatment of capital cities: All of these do not provide for a "non-geo use" provision!
• The ONLY other "category" was "cities"
• And for these there is a non-geo use provision
Seemingly we now have two relatively simplistic tasks:
1. Asking ourselves what the "objective criteria" might be that would equate a SIZEABLE city with the above categories! Undoubtedly a Million people city community needs AT MINIMUM to be looped in when some "brand" wants to hijack the name on DNS top level. Anybody who tries to tell me that the "trade mark rights" of a "brand" are outweighing those of 1 Million people earns my complete rejection. Sorry. The question is what the criteria would be to lift a city into the same category as capital cities or 3166 subnational regions.
2. OUTSIDE of regulating the city category we MIGHT discuss other potential geo categories. But let's not conflate both categories. Let's focus.
Thanks,
Alexander.berlin
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Freitag, 8. Juni 2018 09:16 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
Dear WT5 colleagues, I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions. In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I'll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a 'Globally Protected Marks List' (often referred to then as 'GPML') was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection. Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN's then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: 'The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.' (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pd...) Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision. Best wishes, Heather Forrest ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org><mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>>> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>>
Dear all,
Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC.
Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ
As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> if you would like to change your status from observer to member.
Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3
Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/<https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b592ccc21320b2067715609560b344fb59191929d07b3045>
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/
Main wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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
how many of these are there likely to be? Between LatAm, California and Spain: a lot! El 2018-06-08 18:49, Marita Moll escribió:
Interesting example -- Cordoba (Spain/Argentina).
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Well, maybe, in cases like that, age trumps size. I could live with that because really, how many of these are there likely to be?
Marita Moll On 6/8/2018 4:17 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Cordoba Spain actually dates back to Roman times ;-)
As to definitions of city in Switzerland there is a good explanation here: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-r... <https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-r...> [1](according to which there are 162 cities in Switzerland)
best
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 22:09:03 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>, mmoll@ca.inter.net <mmoll@ca.inter.net>, gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
I'm in agreement with Jorge!
We should consider a relative definition of the local laws, like considering each of the Swiss Cantons having its own capital city, however tiny (Luzern 'watch my spelling´ with 81,057 inhabitants (2015).
If afterwards, Córdoba Spain (inhab. 326,609 (2016) but founded 784 A.D.) happens to be smaller than Córdoba Argentina (inhab. 1.391 million (2010) we can talk......
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
El 2018-06-08 13:48, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch escribió:
Dear all As I mentioned in the last call I feel it is best to respect subsidiarity and hence defer to local laws and policies on what is a city. Each country has its own definitions - hence it would be arbitrary trying to impose one-size-fits-all from here. The advisory panel suggested and/or a database linking to the aprox. 195 definitions and sets of city-lists would probably not be too difficult to be established and would provide applicants with a heightened level of certainty. hope this helps Jorge
________________________________
Von: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 21:20:41 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> 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] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
+1 Marita
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>> wrote: I think this is a practical way forward. Let's start talking about a manageable "size of city" category that would not require an army of people to maintain, for starters. I imagine population is the easiest way to go. But maybe there are better ideas.
Marita Moll
On 6/8/2018 12:44 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear colleagues,
Risking to repeat myself:
* The base for our discussions is the 2012 AGB; NOT a "blank page"
* The 2012 AGB distinguished between CATEGOGIES!
* The categories "UN Regions and 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions" seem relatively undisputed
* So does the treatment of capital cities: All of these do not provide for a "non-geo use" provision!
* The ONLY other "category" was "cities"
* And for these there is a non-geo use provision
Seemingly we now have two relatively simplistic tasks:
1. Asking ourselves what the "objective criteria" might be that would equate a SIZEABLE city with the above categories! Undoubtedly a Million people city community needs AT MINIMUM to be looped in when some "brand" wants to hijack the name on DNS top level. Anybody who tries to tell me that the "trade mark rights" of a "brand" are outweighing those of 1 Million people earns my complete rejection. Sorry. The question is what the criteria would be to lift a city into the same category as capital cities or 3166 subnational regions.
2. OUTSIDE of regulating the city category we MIGHT discuss other potential geo categories. But let's not conflate both categories. Let's focus.
Thanks,
Alexander.berlin
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Freitag, 8. Juni 2018 09:16 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
Dear WT5 colleagues, I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions. In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I'll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a 'Globally Protected Marks List' (often referred to then as 'GPML') was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection. Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN's then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: 'The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.' (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pd...) Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision. Best wishes, Heather Forrest ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org><mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>>> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>>
Dear all,
Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC.
Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ
As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> if you would like to change your status from observer to member.
Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3
Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/<https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b592ccc21320b2067715609560b344fb59191929d07b3045> [2]
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/
Main wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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
Links: ------ [1] https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-r... [2] https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b...
Yes, well, I'm not totally convinced that "age trumps size" would be a good solution. But at least we are trying out real world examples. Marita On 6/8/2018 8:59 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez wrote:
how many of these are there likely to be? Between LatAm, California and Spain: a lot!
El 2018-06-08 18:49, Marita Moll escribió:
Interesting example -- Cordoba (Spain/Argentina).
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
Well, maybe, in cases like that, age trumps size. I could live with that because really, how many of these are there likely to be?
Marita Moll
On 6/8/2018 4:17 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Cordoba Spain actually dates back to Roman times ;-)
As to definitions of city in Switzerland there is a good explanation here:https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-r... <https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-releases.assetdetail.38628.html>(according to which there are 162 cities in Switzerland)
best
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Carlos Raul Gutierrez<carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 22:09:03 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>,mmoll@ca.inter.net <mmoll@ca.inter.net>,gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
I'm in agreement with Jorge!
We should consider a relative definition of the local laws, like considering each of the Swiss Cantons having its own capital city, however tiny (Luzern 'watch my spelling´ with 81,057 inhabitants (2015).
If afterwards, Córdoba Spain (inhab. 326,609 (2016) but founded 784 A.D.) happens to be smaller than Córdoba Argentina (inhab. 1.391 million (2010) we can talk......
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
El 2018-06-08 13:48,Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch escribió:
Dear all As I mentioned in the last call I feel it is best to respect subsidiarity and hence defer to local laws and policies on what is a city. Each country has its own definitions - hence it would be arbitrary trying to impose one-size-fits-all from here. The advisory panel suggested and/or a database linking to the aprox. 195 definitions and sets of city-lists would probably not be too difficult to be established and would provide applicants with a heightened level of certainty. hope this helps Jorge
________________________________
Von: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 21:20:41 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> 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] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
+1 Marita
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>> wrote: I think this is a practical way forward. Let's start talking about a manageable "size of city" category that would not require an army of people to maintain, for starters. I imagine population is the easiest way to go. But maybe there are better ideas.
Marita Moll
On 6/8/2018 12:44 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear colleagues,
Risking to repeat myself:
• The base for our discussions is the 2012 AGB; NOT a "blank page"
• The 2012 AGB distinguished between CATEGOGIES!
• The categories "UN Regions and 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions" seem relatively undisputed
• So does the treatment of capital cities: All of these do not provide for a "non-geo use" provision!
• The ONLY other "category" was "cities"
• And for these there is a non-geo use provision
Seemingly we now have two relatively simplistic tasks:
1. Asking ourselves what the "objective criteria" might be that would equate a SIZEABLE city with the above categories! Undoubtedly a Million people city community needs AT MINIMUM to be looped in when some "brand" wants to hijack the name on DNS top level. Anybody who tries to tell me that the "trade mark rights" of a "brand" are outweighing those of 1 Million people earns my complete rejection. Sorry. The question is what the criteria would be to lift a city into the same category as capital cities or 3166 subnational regions.
2. OUTSIDE of regulating the city category we MIGHT discuss other potential geo categories. But let's not conflate both categories. Let's focus.
Thanks,
Alexander.berlin
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Freitag, 8. Juni 2018 09:16 To:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
Dear WT5 colleagues, I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions. In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I'll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a 'Globally Protected Marks List' (often referred to then as 'GPML') was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection. Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN's then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: 'The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.' (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pd...) Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision. Best wishes, Heather Forrest ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org><mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>>> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>>
Dear all,
Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC.
Agenda wiki page:https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ
As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please emailgnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> if you would like to change your status from observer to member.
Mp3:https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3
Adobe Connect recording:https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/<https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b592ccc21320b2067715609560b344fb59191929d07b3045>
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/
Main wiki page:https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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
Cordova , Illinois, USA El 8 jun. 2018, a la(s) 21:59, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> escribió:
how many of these are there likely to be?
Between LatAm, California and Spain: a lot!
El 2018-06-08 18:49, Marita Moll escribió:
Interesting example -- Cordoba (Spain/Argentina).
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
Well, maybe, in cases like that, age trumps size. I could live with that because really, how many of these are there likely to be?
Marita Moll
On 6/8/2018 4:17 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote: Cordoba Spain actually dates back to Roman times ;-)
As to definitions of city in Switzerland there is a good explanation here: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-r... <https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-releases.assetdetail.38628.html>(according to which there are 162 cities in Switzerland)
best
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 22:09:03 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>, mmoll@ca.inter.net <mmoll@ca.inter.net>, gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
I'm in agreement with Jorge!
We should consider a relative definition of the local laws, like considering each of the Swiss Cantons having its own capital city, however tiny (Luzern 'watch my spelling´ with 81,057 inhabitants (2015).
If afterwards, Córdoba Spain (inhab. 326,609 (2016) but founded 784 A.D.) happens to be smaller than Córdoba Argentina (inhab. 1.391 million (2010) we can talk......
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
El 2018-06-08 13:48, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch escribió:
Dear all As I mentioned in the last call I feel it is best to respect subsidiarity and hence defer to local laws and policies on what is a city. Each country has its own definitions - hence it would be arbitrary trying to impose one-size-fits-all from here. The advisory panel suggested and/or a database linking to the aprox. 195 definitions and sets of city-lists would probably not be too difficult to be established and would provide applicants with a heightened level of certainty. hope this helps Jorge
________________________________
Von: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 21:20:41 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> 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] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
+1 Marita
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>> wrote: I think this is a practical way forward. Let's start talking about a manageable "size of city" category that would not require an army of people to maintain, for starters. I imagine population is the easiest way to go. But maybe there are better ideas.
Marita Moll
On 6/8/2018 12:44 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear colleagues,
Risking to repeat myself:
• The base for our discussions is the 2012 AGB; NOT a "blank page"
• The 2012 AGB distinguished between CATEGOGIES!
• The categories "UN Regions and 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions" seem relatively undisputed
• So does the treatment of capital cities: All of these do not provide for a "non-geo use" provision!
• The ONLY other "category" was "cities"
• And for these there is a non-geo use provision
Seemingly we now have two relatively simplistic tasks:
1. Asking ourselves what the "objective criteria" might be that would equate a SIZEABLE city with the above categories! Undoubtedly a Million people city community needs AT MINIMUM to be looped in when some "brand" wants to hijack the name on DNS top level. Anybody who tries to tell me that the "trade mark rights" of a "brand" are outweighing those of 1 Million people earns my complete rejection. Sorry. The question is what the criteria would be to lift a city into the same category as capital cities or 3166 subnational regions.
2. OUTSIDE of regulating the city category we MIGHT discuss other potential geo categories. But let's not conflate both categories. Let's focus.
Thanks,
Alexander.berlin
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Freitag, 8. Juni 2018 09:16 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
Dear WT5 colleagues, I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions. In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I'll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a 'Globally Protected Marks List' (often referred to then as 'GPML') was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection. Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN's then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: 'The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.' (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pd...) Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision. Best wishes, Heather Forrest ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org><mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>>> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>>
Dear all,
Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC.
Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ
As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> if you would like to change your status from observer to member.
Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3
Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/<https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b592ccc21320b2067715609560b344fb59191929d07b3045>
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/
Main wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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
Friends, Can i please plead we move with a first phase and then start looking at the other bits. That these examples many mention, i had raised before. Rather than give away to the US government and give them good reason to go ahead with undaunted plans for a reversal which an executive order can easy do. Let me again re-state. Let the frst level which is three alphabetical bit which ISO has given out be a first step. Like i said we need to start somewhere, as is the wise words from Lao Tse “ every journey of a thousand miles starts with a first step” am not saying to stop deliberating on the further details about cities and even culture or what have you. If you guys define cities with 50,000 people. What will happen of small countries or islands which have less people in the main cities. So please and i plead. Let us show that these are issues we have noted and lay it down as issues that we need to address for sure but we can resolve them over time as well. Does that mean all the cities around the world would ask for there geonames is still debatable. But again it will not be coming from GAC or whatever. It will come from the different countries and cities and cultures (culture is not a geoname from my take) but worth considering. Let us move the cheese to the first one without language barriers set. Kick off the countries names first. Make a report of consideration and recommendation for the next round. You all have to adjust to one thing, the more we spend time on something the chances of stalling is also leaning against us. Since we all know the bottom up process is starting to falter and we see same in IETF happening as well as within ICANN policies. DO we want another failure to deliver one bit? I say no, let us deliberate and accept the first level countries which are fully noted and onlist with ISO. WHilst stating to ICANN board in a formal report objections etc., that would be my understandable situation. Do we all now what will happen what others will want we dont know. Can we assume we are right about everything. The word assume itself “ASS you and ME”. Make a first move to strike a difference and make he fist part work. I am again saying it is never going to solve all at this stage. We will learn more and more as we get to it. A standing committee that will look at new eventual situations can be setup and as new issues crop we can all be recalled. Please people please if we continue more like this it will never come to and end. We need to strike a first and then look at the other bits. Else the number of people complaining we want this and that we will never ever get anywhere. I am not grouchy but i want to see a first level of success which we all agree the ISO geonames. I still think the three letter remains within the bounds of GNSO and not CCNSO right now. Which could eventually move to them as discussion but i know quite a few countries who are hostage held to even get the two letter country code. I would say GNSO keeps the three letter country code at this stage and ensures the countries get there three letter code. Which will prove even to GAC we are trying to do best that countries are the holders of their names. Second phase the full country names come into play which could also be up for the countries to decide if they want them or not. Then at another stage we open up to see how towns, cities etc., fair out then decide as towns/cities have exist in many countries with similar names which is where we should be careful. If we set 50,000 or 500,000 as the indicator. What happens even with unique city names in smaller countries. I take Mauritius or even seychelles and various more this represents half of the population size of the country and seychelles for example does not even have a population of over 60,000 as a whole. Don’t they have rights? T would say this bit is something that we will need to decide when it comes up and then we cross the bridge as it stands. But are we getting anywhere close to a first win. Sorry to say that we are not even close to it. Another WG / WT that will die and ma end up that the board takes its own path eventually.Then i do not see why we would complain. Kris
On Jun 9, 2018, at 06:19, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com> wrote:
Cordova , Illinois, USA
El 8 jun. 2018, a la(s) 21:59, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> escribió:
how many of these are there likely to be?
Between LatAm, California and Spain: a lot!
El 2018-06-08 18:49, Marita Moll escribió:
Interesting example -- Cordoba (Spain/Argentina).
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
Well, maybe, in cases like that, age trumps size. I could live with that because really, how many of these are there likely to be?
Marita Moll
On 6/8/2018 4:17 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Cordoba Spain actually dates back to Roman times ;-)
As to definitions of city in Switzerland there is a good explanation here: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-r... <https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-r...> <https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-r...> <https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-releases.assetdetail.38628.html>(according to which there are 162 cities in Switzerland)
best
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 22:09:03 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>, mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>, gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
I'm in agreement with Jorge!
We should consider a relative definition of the local laws, like considering each of the Swiss Cantons having its own capital city, however tiny (Luzern 'watch my spelling´ with 81,057 inhabitants (2015).
If afterwards, Córdoba Spain (inhab. 326,609 (2016) but founded 784 A.D.) happens to be smaller than Córdoba Argentina (inhab. 1.391 million (2010) we can talk......
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
El 2018-06-08 13:48, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> escribió:
Dear all As I mentioned in the last call I feel it is best to respect subsidiarity and hence defer to local laws and policies on what is a city. Each country has its own definitions - hence it would be arbitrary trying to impose one-size-fits-all from here. The advisory panel suggested and/or a database linking to the aprox. 195 definitions and sets of city-lists would probably not be too difficult to be established and would provide applicants with a heightened level of certainty. hope this helps Jorge
________________________________
Von: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com><mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 21:20:41 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
+1 Marita
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>> wrote: I think this is a practical way forward. Let's start talking about a manageable "size of city" category that would not require an army of people to maintain, for starters. I imagine population is the easiest way to go. But maybe there are better ideas.
Marita Moll
On 6/8/2018 12:44 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear colleagues,
Risking to repeat myself:
• The base for our discussions is the 2012 AGB; NOT a "blank page"
• The 2012 AGB distinguished between CATEGOGIES!
• The categories "UN Regions and 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions" seem relatively undisputed
• So does the treatment of capital cities: All of these do not provide for a "non-geo use" provision!
• The ONLY other "category" was "cities"
• And for these there is a non-geo use provision
Seemingly we now have two relatively simplistic tasks:
1. Asking ourselves what the "objective criteria" might be that would equate a SIZEABLE city with the above categories! Undoubtedly a Million people city community needs AT MINIMUM to be looped in when some "brand" wants to hijack the name on DNS top level. Anybody who tries to tell me that the "trade mark rights" of a "brand" are outweighing those of 1 Million people earns my complete rejection. Sorry. The question is what the criteria would be to lift a city into the same category as capital cities or 3166 subnational regions.
2. OUTSIDE of regulating the city category we MIGHT discuss other potential geo categories. But let's not conflate both categories. Let's focus.
Thanks,
Alexander.berlin
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Freitag, 8. Juni 2018 09:16 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
Dear WT5 colleagues, I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions. In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I'll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a 'Globally Protected Marks List' (often referred to then as 'GPML') was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection. Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN's then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: 'The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.' (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pd... <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pd...>) Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision. Best wishes, Heather Forrest ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org><mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org> <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org><mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org><mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org> <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>>> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>" <gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>>
Dear all,
Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC.
Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ <https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ>
As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> if you would like to change your status from observer to member.
Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3 <https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3>
Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/ <https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/><https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b592ccc21320b2067715609560b344fb59191929d07b3045> <https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b...>
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar>
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/ <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/>
Main wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw <https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw>
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
Hello Kris. Clearly this is a wide ranging topic and there are other issues to resolve. And they can't all be addressed at once unless we break up into subcommittees. So far I have not seen this group set out the a staging like you describe - i.e. we need to address "this" issue before we address "that" issue. Perhaps I missed it. The momentum so far has been on the cities issue and some progress has been made. There have been suggestions on how to resolve the "unique city names in smaller countries" issue. There are suggestions around size. There are suggestions around definitions. Is this a deterrent to resolving the issues around countries? It has had the effect of delay, which appears to be your concern. It is possible that there is an inherent feeling in the group that cities is going to be one of the more difficult discussions -- because there are so many strings involved, and many more possible conflicts. I hear your "crie de coeur" and if others do, the momentum of the group will go that way. We can park what we have done so far and move to another area -- nothing is lost. Sometimes it is helpful to give some breathing space in this way. Some of your comments below I think are inappropriate -- U.S. gov't takeover? a reordering of the letters in the word assume? Not necessary to make your point. Marita Moll On 6/9/2018 12:38 AM, Kris Seeburn wrote:
Friends,
Can i please plead we move with a first phase and then start looking at the other bits. That these examples many mention, i had raised before. Rather than give away to the US government and give them good reason to go ahead with undaunted plans for a reversal which an executive order can easy do. Let me again re-state. Let the frst level which is three alphabetical bit which ISO has given out be a first step.
Like i said we need to start somewhere, as is the wise words from Lao Tse “ every journey of a thousand miles starts with a first step” am not saying to stop deliberating on the further details about cities and even culture or what have you. If you guys define cities with 50,000 people. What will happen of small countries or islands which have less people in the main cities. So please and i plead. Let us show that these are issues we have noted and lay it down as issues that we need to address for sure but we can resolve them over time as well. Does that mean all the cities around the world would ask for there geonames is still debatable. But again it will not be coming from GAC or whatever. It will come from the different countries and cities and cultures (culture is not a geoname from my take) but worth considering.
Let us move the cheese to the first one without language barriers set. Kick off the countries names first. Make a report of consideration and recommendation for the next round. You all have to adjust to one thing, the more we spend time on something the chances of stalling is also leaning against us. Since we all know the bottom up process is starting to falter and we see same in IETF happening as well as within ICANN policies. DO we want another failure to deliver one bit? I say no, let us deliberate and accept the first level countries which are fully noted and onlist with ISO. WHilst stating to ICANN board in a formal report objections etc., that would be my understandable situation. Do we all now what will happen what others will want we dont know. Can we assume we are right about everything. The word assume itself “ASS you and ME”.
Make a first move to strike a difference and make he fist part work. I am again saying it is never going to solve all at this stage. We will learn more and more as we get to it. A standing committee that will look at new eventual situations can be setup and as new issues crop we can all be recalled.
Please people please if we continue more like this it will never come to and end. We need to strike a first and then look at the other bits. Else the number of people complaining we want this and that we will never ever get anywhere. I am not grouchy but i want to see a first level of success which we all agree the ISO geonames. I still think the three letter remains within the bounds of GNSO and not CCNSO right now. Which could eventually move to them as discussion but i know quite a few countries who are hostage held to even get the two letter country code. I would say GNSO keeps the three letter country code at this stage and ensures the countries get there three letter code. Which will prove even to GAC we are trying to do best that countries are the holders of their names.
Second phase the full country names come into play which could also be up for the countries to decide if they want them or not. Then at another stage we open up to see how towns, cities etc., fair out then decide as towns/cities have exist in many countries with similar names which is where we should be careful. If we set 50,000 or 500,000 as the indicator. What happens even with unique city names in smaller countries. I take Mauritius or even seychelles and various more this represents half of the population size of the country and seychelles for example does not even have a population of over 60,000 as a whole. Don’t they have rights?
T would say this bit is something that we will need to decide when it comes up and then we cross the bridge as it stands. But are we getting anywhere close to a first win. Sorry to say that we are not even close to it. Another WG / WT that will die and ma end up that the board takes its own path eventually.Then i do not see why we would complain.
Kris
On Jun 9, 2018, at 06:19, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote:
Cordova , Illinois, USA
El 8 jun. 2018, a la(s) 21:59, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> escribió:
how many of these are there likely to be? Between LatAm, California and Spain: a lot!
El 2018-06-08 18:49, Marita Moll escribió:
Interesting example -- Cordoba (Spain/Argentina).
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
Well, maybe, in cases like that, age trumps size. I could live with that because really, how many of these are there likely to be?
Marita Moll
On 6/8/2018 4:17 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Cordoba Spain actually dates back to Roman times ;-)
As to definitions of city in Switzerland there is a good explanation here:https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-r... <https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-releases.assetdetail.38628.html>(according to which there are 162 cities in Switzerland)
best
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Carlos Raul Gutierrez<carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 22:09:03 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>,mmoll@ca.inter.net <mmoll@ca.inter.net>,gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
I'm in agreement with Jorge!
We should consider a relative definition of the local laws, like considering each of the Swiss Cantons having its own capital city, however tiny (Luzern 'watch my spelling´ with 81,057 inhabitants (2015).
If afterwards, Córdoba Spain (inhab. 326,609 (2016) but founded 784 A.D.) happens to be smaller than Córdoba Argentina (inhab. 1.391 million (2010) we can talk......
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
El 2018-06-08 13:48,Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch escribió:
Dear all As I mentioned in the last call I feel it is best to respect subsidiarity and hence defer to local laws and policies on what is a city. Each country has its own definitions - hence it would be arbitrary trying to impose one-size-fits-all from here. The advisory panel suggested and/or a database linking to the aprox. 195 definitions and sets of city-lists would probably not be too difficult to be established and would provide applicants with a heightened level of certainty. hope this helps Jorge
________________________________
Von: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 21:20:41 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> 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] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
+1 Marita
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>> wrote: I think this is a practical way forward. Let's start talking about a manageable "size of city" category that would not require an army of people to maintain, for starters. I imagine population is the easiest way to go. But maybe there are better ideas.
Marita Moll
On 6/8/2018 12:44 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear colleagues,
Risking to repeat myself:
• The base for our discussions is the 2012 AGB; NOT a "blank page"
• The 2012 AGB distinguished between CATEGOGIES!
• The categories "UN Regions and 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions" seem relatively undisputed
• So does the treatment of capital cities: All of these do not provide for a "non-geo use" provision!
• The ONLY other "category" was "cities"
• And for these there is a non-geo use provision
Seemingly we now have two relatively simplistic tasks:
1. Asking ourselves what the "objective criteria" might be that would equate a SIZEABLE city with the above categories! Undoubtedly a Million people city community needs AT MINIMUM to be looped in when some "brand" wants to hijack the name on DNS top level. Anybody who tries to tell me that the "trade mark rights" of a "brand" are outweighing those of 1 Million people earns my complete rejection. Sorry. The question is what the criteria would be to lift a city into the same category as capital cities or 3166 subnational regions.
2. OUTSIDE of regulating the city category we MIGHT discuss other potential geo categories. But let's not conflate both categories. Let's focus.
Thanks,
Alexander.berlin
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Freitag, 8. Juni 2018 09:16 To:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
Dear WT5 colleagues, I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions. In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I'll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a 'Globally Protected Marks List' (often referred to then as 'GPML') was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection. Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN's then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: 'The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.' (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pd...) Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision. Best wishes, Heather Forrest ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org><mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>>> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>>
Dear all,
Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC.
Agenda wiki page:https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ
As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please emailgnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> if you would like to change your status from observer to member.
Mp3:https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3
Adobe Connect recording:https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/<https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b592ccc21320b2067715609560b344fb59191929d07b3045>
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/
Main wiki page:https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com>
*
www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Am fine with that … just need to move forward else we go back to like one other group that has had to be locked down RDAP/WHOIS. So really if we can move something forward is already something. That is my point really. If we move in phases we would also learn more. I sincerely don not see whether we will find a solution or even assume everything. But fair enough.
On Jun 9, 2018, at 18:05, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Hello Kris. Clearly this is a wide ranging topic and there are other issues to resolve. And they can't all be addressed at once unless we break up into subcommittees. So far I have not seen this group set out the a staging like you describe - i.e. we need to address "this" issue before we address "that" issue. Perhaps I missed it. The momentum so far has been on the cities issue and some progress has been made. There have been suggestions on how to resolve the "unique city names in smaller countries" issue. There are suggestions around size. There are suggestions around definitions. Is this a deterrent to resolving the issues around countries? It has had the effect of delay, which appears to be your concern. It is possible that there is an inherent feeling in the group that cities is going to be one of the more difficult discussions -- because there are so many strings involved, and many more possible conflicts. I hear your "crie de coeur" and if others do, the momentum of the group will go that way. We can park what we have done so far and move to another area -- nothing is lost. Sometimes it is helpful to give some breathing space in this way.
Some of your comments below I think are inappropriate -- U.S. gov't takeover? a reordering of the letters in the word assume? Not necessary to make your point.
Marita Moll
On 6/9/2018 12:38 AM, Kris Seeburn wrote:
Friends,
Can i please plead we move with a first phase and then start looking at the other bits. That these examples many mention, i had raised before. Rather than give away to the US government and give them good reason to go ahead with undaunted plans for a reversal which an executive order can easy do. Let me again re-state. Let the frst level which is three alphabetical bit which ISO has given out be a first step.
Like i said we need to start somewhere, as is the wise words from Lao Tse “ every journey of a thousand miles starts with a first step” am not saying to stop deliberating on the further details about cities and even culture or what have you. If you guys define cities with 50,000 people. What will happen of small countries or islands which have less people in the main cities. So please and i plead. Let us show that these are issues we have noted and lay it down as issues that we need to address for sure but we can resolve them over time as well. Does that mean all the cities around the world would ask for there geonames is still debatable. But again it will not be coming from GAC or whatever. It will come from the different countries and cities and cultures (culture is not a geoname from my take) but worth considering.
Let us move the cheese to the first one without language barriers set. Kick off the countries names first. Make a report of consideration and recommendation for the next round. You all have to adjust to one thing, the more we spend time on something the chances of stalling is also leaning against us. Since we all know the bottom up process is starting to falter and we see same in IETF happening as well as within ICANN policies. DO we want another failure to deliver one bit? I say no, let us deliberate and accept the first level countries which are fully noted and onlist with ISO. WHilst stating to ICANN board in a formal report objections etc., that would be my understandable situation. Do we all now what will happen what others will want we dont know. Can we assume we are right about everything. The word assume itself “ASS you and ME”.
Make a first move to strike a difference and make he fist part work. I am again saying it is never going to solve all at this stage. We will learn more and more as we get to it. A standing committee that will look at new eventual situations can be setup and as new issues crop we can all be recalled.
Please people please if we continue more like this it will never come to and end. We need to strike a first and then look at the other bits. Else the number of people complaining we want this and that we will never ever get anywhere. I am not grouchy but i want to see a first level of success which we all agree the ISO geonames. I still think the three letter remains within the bounds of GNSO and not CCNSO right now. Which could eventually move to them as discussion but i know quite a few countries who are hostage held to even get the two letter country code. I would say GNSO keeps the three letter country code at this stage and ensures the countries get there three letter code. Which will prove even to GAC we are trying to do best that countries are the holders of their names.
Second phase the full country names come into play which could also be up for the countries to decide if they want them or not. Then at another stage we open up to see how towns, cities etc., fair out then decide as towns/cities have exist in many countries with similar names which is where we should be careful. If we set 50,000 or 500,000 as the indicator. What happens even with unique city names in smaller countries. I take Mauritius or even seychelles and various more this represents half of the population size of the country and seychelles for example does not even have a population of over 60,000 as a whole. Don’t they have rights?
T would say this bit is something that we will need to decide when it comes up and then we cross the bridge as it stands. But are we getting anywhere close to a first win. Sorry to say that we are not even close to it. Another WG / WT that will die and ma end up that the board takes its own path eventually.Then i do not see why we would complain.
Kris
On Jun 9, 2018, at 06:19, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote:
Cordova , Illinois, USA
El 8 jun. 2018, a la(s) 21:59, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> escribió:
how many of these are there likely to be?
Between LatAm, California and Spain: a lot!
El 2018-06-08 18:49, Marita Moll escribió:
Interesting example -- Cordoba (Spain/Argentina).
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
Well, maybe, in cases like that, age trumps size. I could live with that because really, how many of these are there likely to be?
Marita Moll
On 6/8/2018 4:17 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Cordoba Spain actually dates back to Roman times ;-)
As to definitions of city in Switzerland there is a good explanation here: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-r... <https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-r...> <https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-r...> <https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-releases.assetdetail.38628.html>(according to which there are 162 cities in Switzerland)
best
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> <mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 22:09:03 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>, mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>, gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
I'm in agreement with Jorge!
We should consider a relative definition of the local laws, like considering each of the Swiss Cantons having its own capital city, however tiny (Luzern 'watch my spelling´ with 81,057 inhabitants (2015).
If afterwards, Córdoba Spain (inhab. 326,609 (2016) but founded 784 A.D.) happens to be smaller than Córdoba Argentina (inhab. 1.391 million (2010) we can talk......
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
El 2018-06-08 13:48, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> escribió:
Dear all As I mentioned in the last call I feel it is best to respect subsidiarity and hence defer to local laws and policies on what is a city. Each country has its own definitions - hence it would be arbitrary trying to impose one-size-fits-all from here. The advisory panel suggested and/or a database linking to the aprox. 195 definitions and sets of city-lists would probably not be too difficult to be established and would provide applicants with a heightened level of certainty. hope this helps Jorge
________________________________
Von: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com><mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 21:20:41 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
+1 Marita
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>> wrote: I think this is a practical way forward. Let's start talking about a manageable "size of city" category that would not require an army of people to maintain, for starters. I imagine population is the easiest way to go. But maybe there are better ideas.
Marita Moll
On 6/8/2018 12:44 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear colleagues,
Risking to repeat myself:
• The base for our discussions is the 2012 AGB; NOT a "blank page"
• The 2012 AGB distinguished between CATEGOGIES!
• The categories "UN Regions and 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions" seem relatively undisputed
• So does the treatment of capital cities: All of these do not provide for a "non-geo use" provision!
• The ONLY other "category" was "cities"
• And for these there is a non-geo use provision
Seemingly we now have two relatively simplistic tasks:
1. Asking ourselves what the "objective criteria" might be that would equate a SIZEABLE city with the above categories! Undoubtedly a Million people city community needs AT MINIMUM to be looped in when some "brand" wants to hijack the name on DNS top level. Anybody who tries to tell me that the "trade mark rights" of a "brand" are outweighing those of 1 Million people earns my complete rejection. Sorry. The question is what the criteria would be to lift a city into the same category as capital cities or 3166 subnational regions.
2. OUTSIDE of regulating the city category we MIGHT discuss other potential geo categories. But let's not conflate both categories. Let's focus.
Thanks,
Alexander.berlin
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Freitag, 8. Juni 2018 09:16 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
Dear WT5 colleagues, I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions. In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I'll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a 'Globally Protected Marks List' (often referred to then as 'GPML') was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection. Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN's then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: 'The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.' (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pd... <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pd...>) Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision. Best wishes, Heather Forrest ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org><mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org> <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org><mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org><mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org> <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>>> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>" <gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>>
Dear all,
Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC.
Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ <https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ>
As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> if you would like to change your status from observer to member.
Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3 <https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3>
Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/ <https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/><https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b592ccc21320b2067715609560b344fb59191929d07b3045> <https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b...>
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar>
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/ <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/>
Main wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw <https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw>
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto: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>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
<KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
Dear All,, Somebody suggested that we come to terms and agree on a first way forward If that first way forward is to deny the very rights of the people of a county or region not to allow them to preserve their historical héritage, their identity, their culture and their customs in removing the requirements of Acceptance or No Objection ,I categorically disagree with such first step This is important to remember the fundamental rights of billions of people can not be compromise few some 20-30 the majority of which speaks on their own behalf whereas those billions of people are not defended by anybody.. Regards Kavouss On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 4:11 PM Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> wrote:
Am fine with that … just need to move forward else we go back to like one other group that has had to be locked down RDAP/WHOIS. So really if we can move something forward is already something. That is my point really. If we move in phases we would also learn more. I sincerely don not see whether we will find a solution or even assume everything. But fair enough.
On Jun 9, 2018, at 18:05, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Hello Kris. Clearly this is a wide ranging topic and there are other issues to resolve. And they can't all be addressed at once unless we break up into subcommittees. So far I have not seen this group set out the a staging like you describe - i.e. we need to address "this" issue before we address "that" issue. Perhaps I missed it.
The momentum so far has been on the cities issue and some progress has been made. There have been suggestions on how to resolve the "unique city names in smaller countries" issue. There are suggestions around size. There are suggestions around definitions. Is this a deterrent to resolving the issues around countries? It has had the effect of delay, which appears to be your concern. It is possible that there is an inherent feeling in the group that cities is going to be one of the more difficult discussions -- because there are so many strings involved, and many more possible conflicts. I hear your "crie de coeur" and if others do, the momentum of the group will go that way. We can park what we have done so far and move to another area -- nothing is lost. Sometimes it is helpful to give some breathing space in this way.
Some of your comments below I think are inappropriate -- U.S. gov't takeover? a reordering of the letters in the word assume? Not necessary to make your point.
Marita Moll
On 6/9/2018 12:38 AM, Kris Seeburn wrote:
Friends,
Can i please plead we move with a first phase and then start looking at the other bits. That these examples many mention, i had raised before. Rather than give away to the US government and give them good reason to go ahead with undaunted plans for a reversal which an executive order can easy do. Let me again re-state. Let the frst level which is three alphabetical bit which ISO has given out be a first step.
Like i said we need to start somewhere, as is the wise words from Lao Tse “ every journey of a thousand miles starts with a first step” am not saying to stop deliberating on the further details about cities and even culture or what have you. If you guys define cities with 50,000 people. What will happen of small countries or islands which have less people in the main cities. So please and i plead. Let us show that these are issues we have noted and lay it down as issues that we need to address for sure but we can resolve them over time as well. Does that mean all the cities around the world would ask for there geonames is still debatable. But again it will not be coming from GAC or whatever. It will come from the different countries and cities and cultures (culture is not a geoname from my take) but worth considering.
Let us move the cheese to the first one without language barriers set. Kick off the countries names first. Make a report of consideration and recommendation for the next round. You all have to adjust to one thing, the more we spend time on something the chances of stalling is also leaning against us. Since we all know the bottom up process is starting to falter and we see same in IETF happening as well as within ICANN policies. DO we want another failure to deliver one bit? I say no, let us deliberate and accept the first level countries which are fully noted and onlist with ISO. WHilst stating to ICANN board in a formal report objections etc., that would be my understandable situation. Do we all now what will happen what others will want we dont know. Can we assume we are right about everything. The word assume itself “ASS you and ME”.
Make a first move to strike a difference and make he fist part work. I am again saying it is never going to solve all at this stage. We will learn more and more as we get to it. A standing committee that will look at new eventual situations can be setup and as new issues crop we can all be recalled.
Please people please if we continue more like this it will never come to and end. We need to strike a first and then look at the other bits. Else the number of people complaining we want this and that we will never ever get anywhere. I am not grouchy but i want to see a first level of success which we all agree the ISO geonames. I still think the three letter remains within the bounds of GNSO and not CCNSO right now. Which could eventually move to them as discussion but i know quite a few countries who are hostage held to even get the two letter country code. I would say GNSO keeps the three letter country code at this stage and ensures the countries get there three letter code. Which will prove even to GAC we are trying to do best that countries are the holders of their names.
Second phase the full country names come into play which could also be up for the countries to decide if they want them or not. Then at another stage we open up to see how towns, cities etc., fair out then decide as towns/cities have exist in many countries with similar names which is where we should be careful. If we set 50,000 or 500,000 as the indicator. What happens even with unique city names in smaller countries. I take Mauritius or even seychelles and various more this represents half of the population size of the country and seychelles for example does not even have a population of over 60,000 as a whole. Don’t they have rights?
T would say this bit is something that we will need to decide when it comes up and then we cross the bridge as it stands. But are we getting anywhere close to a first win. Sorry to say that we are not even close to it. Another WG / WT that will die and ma end up that the board takes its own path eventually.Then i do not see why we would complain.
Kris
On Jun 9, 2018, at 06:19, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com> wrote:
Cordova , Illinois, USA
El 8 jun. 2018, a la(s) 21:59, Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul@gutierrez.se> escribió:
how many of these are there likely to be?
Between LatAm, California and Spain: a lot!
El 2018-06-08 18:49, Marita Moll escribió:
Interesting example -- Cordoba (Spain/Argentina).
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
Well, maybe, in cases like that, age trumps size. I could live with that because really, how many of these are there likely to be?
Marita Moll
On 6/8/2018 4:17 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Cordoba Spain actually dates back to Roman times ;-)
As to definitions of city in Switzerland there is a good explanation here: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-releases.assetdetail.38628.html<https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-releases.assetdetail.38628.html> <https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/press-releases.assetdetail.38628.html>(according to which there are 162 cities in Switzerland)
best
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 22:09:03 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>, mmoll@ca.inter.net <mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mmoll@ca.inter.net>, gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
I'm in agreement with Jorge!
We should consider a relative definition of the local laws, like considering each of the Swiss Cantons having its own capital city, however tiny (Luzern 'watch my spelling´ with 81,057 inhabitants (2015).
If afterwards, Córdoba Spain (inhab. 326,609 (2016) but founded 784 A.D.) happens to be smaller than Córdoba Argentina (inhab. 1.391 million (2010) we can talk......
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
El 2018-06-08 13:48, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch escribió:
Dear all As I mentioned in the last call I feel it is best to respect subsidiarity and hence defer to local laws and policies on what is a city. Each country has its own definitions - hence it would be arbitrary trying to impose one-size-fits-all from here. The advisory panel suggested and/or a database linking to the aprox. 195 definitions and sets of city-lists would probably not be too difficult to be established and would provide applicants with a heightened level of certainty. hope this helps Jorge
________________________________
Von: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 21:20:41 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mmoll@ca.inter.net>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
+1 Marita
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net <mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mmoll@ca.inter.net>>> wrote: I think this is a practical way forward. Let's start talking about a manageable "size of city" category that would not require an army of people to maintain, for starters. I imagine population is the easiest way to go. But maybe there are better ideas.
Marita Moll
On 6/8/2018 12:44 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear colleagues,
Risking to repeat myself:
• The base for our discussions is the 2012 AGB; NOT a "blank page"
• The 2012 AGB distinguished between CATEGOGIES!
• The categories "UN Regions and 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions" seem relatively undisputed
• So does the treatment of capital cities: All of these do not provide for a "non-geo use" provision!
• The ONLY other "category" was "cities"
• And for these there is a non-geo use provision
Seemingly we now have two relatively simplistic tasks:
1. Asking ourselves what the "objective criteria" might be that would equate a SIZEABLE city with the above categories! Undoubtedly a Million people city community needs AT MINIMUM to be looped in when some "brand" wants to hijack the name on DNS top level. Anybody who tries to tell me that the "trade mark rights" of a "brand" are outweighing those of 1 Million people earns my complete rejection. Sorry. The question is what the criteria would be to lift a city into the same category as capital cities or 3166 subnational regions.
2. OUTSIDE of regulating the city category we MIGHT discuss other potential geo categories. But let's not conflate both categories. Let's focus.
Thanks,
Alexander.berlin
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Freitag, 8. Juni 2018 09:16 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
Dear WT5 colleagues, I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions. In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I'll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a 'Globally Protected Marks List' (often referred to then as 'GPML') was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection. Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN's then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: 'The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.' (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pd...) Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision. Best wishes, Heather Forrest ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org> <terri.agnew@icann.org><mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org <terri.agnew@icann.org><mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org> <terri.agnew@icann.org>>> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> <gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> <gnso-secs@icann.org>>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> <gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> <gnso-secs@icann.org>>>
Dear all,
Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC.
Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ
As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> <gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> <gnso-secs@icann.org>> if you would like to change your status from observer to member.
Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3
Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/<https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b592ccc21320b2067715609560b344fb59191929d07b3045> <https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b...>
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/
Main wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <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.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <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.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <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.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <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
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com
- www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
<KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing 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
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com
- www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Following on from this morning's very constructive call and Jorge's comment below, I had two further thoughts: 1. With capital cities I did say it before but I didn't see it in the working doc, do we really need to protect every language worldwide? 2. Related to 1, as part of implementation in the next round, I wondered whether there could be an online tool for prospective applicants into which they could put the string they were thinking of applying for. This would flag up whether the string was eligible for delegation (e.g. last round you couldn't apply for 'ICANN' etc which I imagine will still be the case), whether there were geo issues which would need further action (e.g. non-objection letter). I don't expect this to be definitive because it wouldn't cover all string similarity issues or public interest/ morals questions but it would be a start. The progress in good online tools when searching for new possible trade mark options or company names has really come on since 2012 and it would be good to leverage that. It was point 2 which made me wonder how even a well-informed prospective applicant could know the translation of every capital city worldwide into every language and if it couldn't easily be checked for then it doesn't seem like a very fair provision. Just a couple of thoughts whilst on the train to London! Cheers Nick -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: 08 June 2018 20:49 To: maureen.hilyard@gmail.com; mmoll@ca.inter.net Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June Dear all As I mentioned in the last call I feel it is best to respect subsidiarity and hence defer to local laws and policies on what is a city. Each country has its own definitions - hence it would be arbitrary trying to impose one-size-fits-all from here. The advisory panel suggested and/or a database linking to the aprox. 195 definitions and sets of city-lists would probably not be too difficult to be established and would provide applicants with a heightened level of certainty. hope this helps Jorge ________________________________ Von: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 21:20:41 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June +1 Marita On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: I think this is a practical way forward. Let's start talking about a manageable "size of city" category that would not require an army of people to maintain, for starters. I imagine population is the easiest way to go. But maybe there are better ideas. Marita Moll On 6/8/2018 12:44 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear colleagues, Risking to repeat myself: * The base for our discussions is the 2012 AGB; NOT a "blank page" * The 2012 AGB distinguished between CATEGOGIES! * The categories "UN Regions and 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions" seem relatively undisputed * So does the treatment of capital cities: All of these do not provide for a "non-geo use" provision! * The ONLY other "category" was "cities" * And for these there is a non-geo use provision Seemingly we now have two relatively simplistic tasks: 1. Asking ourselves what the "objective criteria" might be that would equate a SIZEABLE city with the above categories! Undoubtedly a Million people city community needs AT MINIMUM to be looped in when some "brand" wants to hijack the name on DNS top level. Anybody who tries to tell me that the "trade mark rights" of a "brand" are outweighing those of 1 Million people earns my complete rejection. Sorry. The question is what the criteria would be to lift a city into the same category as capital cities or 3166 subnational regions. 2. OUTSIDE of regulating the city category we MIGHT discuss other potential geo categories. But let's not conflate both categories. Let's focus. Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Freitag, 8. Juni 2018 09:16 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June Dear WT5 colleagues, I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions. In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I'll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a 'Globally Protected Marks List' (often referred to then as 'GPML') was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection. Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN's then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: 'The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.' (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pd...) Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision. Best wishes, Heather Forrest ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Dear all, Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/<https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b592ccc21320b2067715609560b344fb59191929d07b3045> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/ Main wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri _______________________________________________ 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
I agree with the suggestions below -- just with the caveat that managing databases of this size, and one that will not be static for long, is going to require resources. If it is going to be maintained by ICANN it will have to be recognized that some staff resources will have to be allocated. Marita Moll On 6/13/2018 9:46 AM, Nick Wenban-Smith wrote:
Following on from this morning's very constructive call and Jorge's comment below, I had two further thoughts:
1. With capital cities I did say it before but I didn't see it in the working doc, do we really need to protect every language worldwide? 2. Related to 1, as part of implementation in the next round, I wondered whether there could be an online tool for prospective applicants into which they could put the string they were thinking of applying for. This would flag up whether the string was eligible for delegation (e.g. last round you couldn't apply for 'ICANN' etc which I imagine will still be the case), whether there were geo issues which would need further action (e.g. non-objection letter). I don't expect this to be definitive because it wouldn't cover all string similarity issues or public interest/ morals questions but it would be a start. The progress in good online tools when searching for new possible trade mark options or company names has really come on since 2012 and it would be good to leverage that.
It was point 2 which made me wonder how even a well-informed prospective applicant could know the translation of every capital city worldwide into every language and if it couldn't easily be checked for then it doesn't seem like a very fair provision.
Just a couple of thoughts whilst on the train to London!
Cheers Nick
-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: 08 June 2018 20:49 To: maureen.hilyard@gmail.com; mmoll@ca.inter.net Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
Dear all As I mentioned in the last call I feel it is best to respect subsidiarity and hence defer to local laws and policies on what is a city. Each country has its own definitions - hence it would be arbitrary trying to impose one-size-fits-all from here. The advisory panel suggested and/or a database linking to the aprox. 195 definitions and sets of city-lists would probably not be too difficult to be established and would provide applicants with a heightened level of certainty. hope this helps Jorge
________________________________
Von: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 21:20:41 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
+1 Marita
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: I think this is a practical way forward. Let's start talking about a manageable "size of city" category that would not require an army of people to maintain, for starters. I imagine population is the easiest way to go. But maybe there are better ideas.
Marita Moll
On 6/8/2018 12:44 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear colleagues,
Risking to repeat myself:
* The base for our discussions is the 2012 AGB; NOT a "blank page"
* The 2012 AGB distinguished between CATEGOGIES!
* The categories "UN Regions and 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions" seem relatively undisputed
* So does the treatment of capital cities: All of these do not provide for a "non-geo use" provision!
* The ONLY other "category" was "cities"
* And for these there is a non-geo use provision
Seemingly we now have two relatively simplistic tasks:
1. Asking ourselves what the "objective criteria" might be that would equate a SIZEABLE city with the above categories! Undoubtedly a Million people city community needs AT MINIMUM to be looped in when some "brand" wants to hijack the name on DNS top level. Anybody who tries to tell me that the "trade mark rights" of a "brand" are outweighing those of 1 Million people earns my complete rejection. Sorry. The question is what the criteria would be to lift a city into the same category as capital cities or 3166 subnational regions.
2. OUTSIDE of regulating the city category we MIGHT discuss other potential geo categories. But let's not conflate both categories. Let's focus.
Thanks,
Alexander.berlin
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Freitag, 8. Juni 2018 09:16 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June
Dear WT5 colleagues, I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions. In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I'll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a 'Globally Protected Marks List' (often referred to then as 'GPML') was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection. Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN's then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: 'The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.' (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pd...) Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision. Best wishes, Heather Forrest ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>
Dear all,
Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC.
Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ
As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member.
Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3
Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/<https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b592ccc21320b2067715609560b344fb59191929d07b3045>
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/
Main wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri
_______________________________________________ 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 Nick, The discussion of "in any language" text was initially part of the discussion on short and long form country and territory names and is included in the Working Document on page 19. Staff has added a reference on page 24 stating that similar questions apply to the text "in any language" for capital city names. Kind regards, Emily On 13/06/2018, 15:46, "Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 on behalf of Nick Wenban-Smith" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> wrote: Following on from this morning's very constructive call and Jorge's comment below, I had two further thoughts: 1. With capital cities I did say it before but I didn't see it in the working doc, do we really need to protect every language worldwide? 2. Related to 1, as part of implementation in the next round, I wondered whether there could be an online tool for prospective applicants into which they could put the string they were thinking of applying for. This would flag up whether the string was eligible for delegation (e.g. last round you couldn't apply for 'ICANN' etc which I imagine will still be the case), whether there were geo issues which would need further action (e.g. non-objection letter). I don't expect this to be definitive because it wouldn't cover all string similarity issues or public interest/ morals questions but it would be a start. The progress in good online tools when searching for new possible trade mark options or company names has really come on since 2012 and it would be good to leverage that. It was point 2 which made me wonder how even a well-informed prospective applicant could know the translation of every capital city worldwide into every language and if it couldn't easily be checked for then it doesn't seem like a very fair provision. Just a couple of thoughts whilst on the train to London! Cheers Nick -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: 08 June 2018 20:49 To: maureen.hilyard@gmail.com; mmoll@ca.inter.net Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June Dear all As I mentioned in the last call I feel it is best to respect subsidiarity and hence defer to local laws and policies on what is a city. Each country has its own definitions - hence it would be arbitrary trying to impose one-size-fits-all from here. The advisory panel suggested and/or a database linking to the aprox. 195 definitions and sets of city-lists would probably not be too difficult to be established and would provide applicants with a heightened level of certainty. hope this helps Jorge ________________________________ Von: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 21:20:41 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June +1 Marita On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: I think this is a practical way forward. Let's start talking about a manageable "size of city" category that would not require an army of people to maintain, for starters. I imagine population is the easiest way to go. But maybe there are better ideas. Marita Moll On 6/8/2018 12:44 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear colleagues, Risking to repeat myself: * The base for our discussions is the 2012 AGB; NOT a "blank page" * The 2012 AGB distinguished between CATEGOGIES! * The categories "UN Regions and 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions" seem relatively undisputed * So does the treatment of capital cities: All of these do not provide for a "non-geo use" provision! * The ONLY other "category" was "cities" * And for these there is a non-geo use provision Seemingly we now have two relatively simplistic tasks: 1. Asking ourselves what the "objective criteria" might be that would equate a SIZEABLE city with the above categories! Undoubtedly a Million people city community needs AT MINIMUM to be looped in when some "brand" wants to hijack the name on DNS top level. Anybody who tries to tell me that the "trade mark rights" of a "brand" are outweighing those of 1 Million people earns my complete rejection. Sorry. The question is what the criteria would be to lift a city into the same category as capital cities or 3166 subnational regions. 2. OUTSIDE of regulating the city category we MIGHT discuss other potential geo categories. But let's not conflate both categories. Let's focus. Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Freitag, 8. Juni 2018 09:16 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June Dear WT5 colleagues, I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions. In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I'll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a 'Globally Protected Marks List' (often referred to then as 'GPML') was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection. Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN's then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: 'The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.' (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_sys&d=... tem/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pdf) Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision. Best wishes, Heather Forrest ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Dear all, Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_M... As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. Mp3: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn... Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/<https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b592ccc21320b2067715609560b344fb59191929d07b3045> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-... ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/ Main wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_Y... Thank you. Kind regards, Terri _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Thanks Emily! -----Original Message----- From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> Sent: 13 June 2018 15:16 To: Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; maureen.hilyard@gmail.com; mmoll@ca.inter.net Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June Dear Nick, The discussion of "in any language" text was initially part of the discussion on short and long form country and territory names and is included in the Working Document on page 19. Staff has added a reference on page 24 stating that similar questions apply to the text "in any language" for capital city names. Kind regards, Emily On 13/06/2018, 15:46, "Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 on behalf of Nick Wenban-Smith" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> wrote: Following on from this morning's very constructive call and Jorge's comment below, I had two further thoughts: 1. With capital cities I did say it before but I didn't see it in the working doc, do we really need to protect every language worldwide? 2. Related to 1, as part of implementation in the next round, I wondered whether there could be an online tool for prospective applicants into which they could put the string they were thinking of applying for. This would flag up whether the string was eligible for delegation (e.g. last round you couldn't apply for 'ICANN' etc which I imagine will still be the case), whether there were geo issues which would need further action (e.g. non-objection letter). I don't expect this to be definitive because it wouldn't cover all string similarity issues or public interest/ morals questions but it would be a start. The progress in good online tools when searching for new possible trade mark options or company names has really come on since 2012 and it would be good to leverage that. It was point 2 which made me wonder how even a well-informed prospective applicant could know the translation of every capital city worldwide into every language and if it couldn't easily be checked for then it doesn't seem like a very fair provision. Just a couple of thoughts whilst on the train to London! Cheers Nick -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: 08 June 2018 20:49 To: maureen.hilyard@gmail.com; mmoll@ca.inter.net Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June Dear all As I mentioned in the last call I feel it is best to respect subsidiarity and hence defer to local laws and policies on what is a city. Each country has its own definitions - hence it would be arbitrary trying to impose one-size-fits-all from here. The advisory panel suggested and/or a database linking to the aprox. 195 definitions and sets of city-lists would probably not be too difficult to be established and would provide applicants with a heightened level of certainty. hope this helps Jorge ________________________________ Von: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 21:20:41 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June +1 Marita On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: I think this is a practical way forward. Let's start talking about a manageable "size of city" category that would not require an army of people to maintain, for starters. I imagine population is the easiest way to go. But maybe there are better ideas. Marita Moll On 6/8/2018 12:44 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear colleagues, Risking to repeat myself: * The base for our discussions is the 2012 AGB; NOT a "blank page" * The 2012 AGB distinguished between CATEGOGIES! * The categories "UN Regions and 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions" seem relatively undisputed * So does the treatment of capital cities: All of these do not provide for a "non-geo use" provision! * The ONLY other "category" was "cities" * And for these there is a non-geo use provision Seemingly we now have two relatively simplistic tasks: 1. Asking ourselves what the "objective criteria" might be that would equate a SIZEABLE city with the above categories! Undoubtedly a Million people city community needs AT MINIMUM to be looped in when some "brand" wants to hijack the name on DNS top level. Anybody who tries to tell me that the "trade mark rights" of a "brand" are outweighing those of 1 Million people earns my complete rejection. Sorry. The question is what the criteria would be to lift a city into the same category as capital cities or 3166 subnational regions. 2. OUTSIDE of regulating the city category we MIGHT discuss other potential geo categories. But let's not conflate both categories. Let's focus. Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Freitag, 8. Juni 2018 09:16 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June Dear WT5 colleagues, I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions. In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I'll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a 'Globally Protected Marks List' (often referred to then as 'GPML') was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection. Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN's then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: 'The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.' (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_sys&d=... tem/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pdf) Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision. Best wishes, Heather Forrest ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Dear all, Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_M... As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. Mp3: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn... Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/<https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b592ccc21320b2067715609560b344fb59191929d07b3045> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-... ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/ Main wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_Y... Thank you. Kind regards, Terri _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Hello everyone Just a quick clarification on this…I think we should be precise and talk about script not language? We had examples in the 2012 round with, for example, .moscow and its Cyrillic equivalent. Naturally, encouraging more IDN applications for new TLDs would be a great thing for end users. I would, however, caution against setting up policies that would “force” an applicant to apply for an ASCII string and its IDN equivalent unless that is what it really wanted to do. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au> Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. On 14 Jun 2018, at 12:56 am, Nick Wenban-Smith <nick.wenban-smith@nominet.uk<mailto:nick.wenban-smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Thanks Emily! -----Original Message----- From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Sent: 13 June 2018 15:16 To: Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>>; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>; 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] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June Dear Nick, The discussion of "in any language" text was initially part of the discussion on short and long form country and territory names and is included in the Working Document on page 19. Staff has added a reference on page 24 stating that similar questions apply to the text "in any language" for capital city names. Kind regards, Emily On 13/06/2018, 15:46, "Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 on behalf of Nick Wenban-Smith" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk<mailto:Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk>> wrote: Following on from this morning's very constructive call and Jorge's comment below, I had two further thoughts: 1. With capital cities I did say it before but I didn't see it in the working doc, do we really need to protect every language worldwide? 2. Related to 1, as part of implementation in the next round, I wondered whether there could be an online tool for prospective applicants into which they could put the string they were thinking of applying for. This would flag up whether the string was eligible for delegation (e.g. last round you couldn't apply for 'ICANN' etc which I imagine will still be the case), whether there were geo issues which would need further action (e.g. non-objection letter). I don't expect this to be definitive because it wouldn't cover all string similarity issues or public interest/ morals questions but it would be a start. The progress in good online tools when searching for new possible trade mark options or company names has really come on since 2012 and it would be good to leverage that. It was point 2 which made me wonder how even a well-informed prospective applicant could know the translation of every capital city worldwide into every language and if it couldn't easily be checked for then it doesn't seem like a very fair provision. Just a couple of thoughts whilst on the train to London! Cheers Nick -----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 Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: 08 June 2018 20:49 To: maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>; 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] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June Dear all As I mentioned in the last call I feel it is best to respect subsidiarity and hence defer to local laws and policies on what is a city. Each country has its own definitions - hence it would be arbitrary trying to impose one-size-fits-all from here. The advisory panel suggested and/or a database linking to the aprox. 195 definitions and sets of city-lists would probably not be too difficult to be established and would provide applicants with a heightened level of certainty. hope this helps Jorge ________________________________ Von: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Datum: 8. Juni 2018 um 21:20:41 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> 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] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June +1 Marita On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: I think this is a practical way forward. Let's start talking about a manageable "size of city" category that would not require an army of people to maintain, for starters. I imagine population is the easiest way to go. But maybe there are better ideas. Marita Moll On 6/8/2018 12:44 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear colleagues, Risking to repeat myself: * The base for our discussions is the 2012 AGB; NOT a "blank page" * The 2012 AGB distinguished between CATEGOGIES! * The categories "UN Regions and 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions" seem relatively undisputed * So does the treatment of capital cities: All of these do not provide for a "non-geo use" provision! * The ONLY other "category" was "cities" * And for these there is a non-geo use provision Seemingly we now have two relatively simplistic tasks: 1. Asking ourselves what the "objective criteria" might be that would equate a SIZEABLE city with the above categories! Undoubtedly a Million people city community needs AT MINIMUM to be looped in when some "brand" wants to hijack the name on DNS top level. Anybody who tries to tell me that the "trade mark rights" of a "brand" are outweighing those of 1 Million people earns my complete rejection. Sorry. The question is what the criteria would be to lift a city into the same category as capital cities or 3166 subnational regions. 2. OUTSIDE of regulating the city category we MIGHT discuss other potential geo categories. But let's not conflate both categories. Let's focus. Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Freitag, 8. Juni 2018 09:16 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June Dear WT5 colleagues, I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions. In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I'll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a 'Globally Protected Marks List' (often referred to then as 'GPML') was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection. Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN's then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: 'The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.' (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_sys&d=... tem/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pdf) Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision. Best wishes, Heather Forrest ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org><mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Dear all, Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_M... As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. Mp3: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn... Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/<https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b592ccc21320b2067715609560b344fb59191929d07b3045> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-... ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/ Main wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_Y... Thank you. Kind regards, Terri _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto: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><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><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
Hello Alexander Thanks for reminding us all in easy to read format where we got to in 2012. Simple question though…why are you wanting to change the definition of a city for the purposes of new TLD applications? Having arbitrary definitions based on size (which changes over time) and which don’t really help an applicant seems strange to me? Maybe I have missed another good reason to “impose” a new size definition in the criteria? If you could explain that (and don’t worry if you have to repeat yourself) then perhaps I will better understand why that is a good thing to consider? 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 9 Jun 2018, at 2:44 am, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Dear colleagues, Risking to repeat myself: • The base for our discussions is the 2012 AGB; NOT a “blank page” • The 2012 AGB distinguished between CATEGOGIES! • The categories “UN Regions and 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions” seem relatively undisputed • So does the treatment of capital cities: All of these do not provide for a “non-geo use” provision! • The ONLY other “category” was “cities” • And for these there is a non-geo use provision Seemingly we now have two relatively simplistic tasks: 1. Asking ourselves what the “objective criteria” might be that would equate a SIZEABLE city with the above categories! Undoubtedly a Million people city community needs AT MINIMUM to be looped in when some “brand” wants to hijack the name on DNS top level. Anybody who tries to tell me that the “trade mark rights” of a “brand” are outweighing those of 1 Million people earns my complete rejection. Sorry. The question is what the criteria would be to lift a city into the same category as capital cities or 3166 subnational regions. 2. OUTSIDE of regulating the city category we MIGHT discuss other potential geo categories. But let’s not conflate both categories. Let’s focus. Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Freitag, 8. Juni 2018 09:16 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Follow up on comment in chat during WT5 meeting of 6 June Dear WT5 colleagues, I write to follow up on my comment in the AC chat near the end of our meeting on 6 June 2018 (Heather Forrest: In my view all of the proposals above based on quantitative thresholds suffer from randomness. I do not support the use of the letter of support/non-objection for other reasons already noted on the list, but these proposals create more problems. AND Heather Forrest:+1 Liz - and indeed I should have said 'arbitrariness' rather than 'randomness' (apologies- it's early morning here in APAC!)). I'm sorry that I had to drop the call soon after to attend another meeting, so was unable to provide context or answer questions. In the policy development process that led to the 2012 AGB the protection of famous and well-known trademarks, a legal right explicitly recognised by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which 177 countries are a member), was ultimately not adopted by the GNSO or implemented in the AGB. There is a very long history here that goes back to the Implementation Review Team (several highly experienced members of this PDP were members of that RT), but for our purposes I’ll just highlight that protection of famous trademarks through a ‘Globally Protected Marks List’ (often referred to then as ‘GPML’) was rejected due to equivalent concerns as those raised by myself and others in our call about the use of quantitative, geographic eligibility criteria for protection. Those involved in the PDP at that time found it challenging to determine the criteria for identifying a mark as famous, and thus eligible to be included on the GPML. The inherently arbitrary nature of quantitative, geographical criteria (e.g., the mark being protected by registration in a specified number of jurisdictions in each of the five ICANN regions) was vigorously debated at ICANN35 in June 2009. At United States Congressional oversight hearings on new gTLDs in May 2011, ICANN’s then Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations cited concerns expressed by WIPO as to the mechanics of such a list and opposition from the GAC as chief obstacles to its implementation in new gTLD policy. He concluded: ‘The time, commitment and resources (from ICANN and the community) needed to create and maintain such a list would provide only marginal benefits as such a list would apply to only a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names.’ (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pd...) Should WT5 conclude that it is now appropriate to use quantitative geographic criteria in relation to requirements on city names (as I have expressed before in meetings and submissions, I do not personally support this conclusion), we must be prepared to explain in detail in the Final Report how these criteria overcome challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, and are not inconsistent with this earlier GNSO policy decision. Best wishes, Heather Forrest ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Recordings, attendance & Adobe Connect chat from GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call / Wednesday, 06 June 2018 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Dear all, Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached. The MP3 and Adobe Connect recording is below for the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 5 (Geographic Names at the top-level) call held on Wednesday, 06 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/MScFBQ As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track5-06jun18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/<https://participate.icann.org/p8b696447i2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d01eb915b907ba60b592ccc21320b2067715609560b344fb59191929d07b3045> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/ Main wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri _______________________________________________ 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
participants (14)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Arasteh -
Carlos Raul Gutierrez -
Emily Barabas -
Heather Forrest -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Kavouss Arasteh
-
Kris Seeburn -
Liz Williams -
Marita Moll -
Maureen Hilyard -
Nick Wenban-Smith -
Olga Cavalli -
Poncelet Ileleji