Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated
Dear IRT Members, We’ve updated the Geographic Names AGB section<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N1iLzfPp4IeTuTyO46T7WSjww7kpe_fzJIVOaSQ5...> based on the discussions held on the 3 October IRT call. As noted during that session, we will not be having another dedicated call on this topic but can continue to discuss this on-list if there are any comments or concerns. As a reminder, past agenda items and video/audio recordings from the previous session can be found on the IRT Community Wiki.<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=273449325> Thank you! Best, Michael
Hi members, I guess few of us have ever dealt with the real-life issues of obtaining “government support” for a geo gTLD. I have: both in the last round, and right now for the 2nd round. And I urge us to remember one of the glaring issues that actually created quite a commotion in the 1st round: The total absence of any timeline for such letter. In the last round one applicant had government support that was literally ‘years old’ – and allegedly even subsequently withdrawn: .africa. Remember what hassle that caused? So, I recommend introducing a simple shelf-life requirement for the support letter. It is of course laudable when such support letter has been acquired years before the application submission. But even IF an applicant acquired such expression of support very early out – would it be an unbearable task for them to kindly ask the applicable entity to re-sign the letter? Because sometimes the responsible entity changes (e.g., a new major in a city) and shouldn’t they have a say, too? Or they changed their mind – e.g., after having been approached by a more suitable applicant. I think the signature under the support letter shouldn’t be older than e.g., 6 months before the application submission. The exact amount of time would of course be subject to discussion. But I assume we could save ourselves quite some troubles if we require to either sign (or re-sign an already signed) letter X months before the actual application submission. I also urge to have the deadline requirement stipulated in the letter itself: so that the relevant Government entity is aware that they will have to resign the letter later! Something along the lines: “The signee is aware that ICANN will require that this letter of support (non-objection) has to be authorized (or re-authorized) within 6 months to the actual application submission.” Has the example support letter draft been finalized already? Is the draft publicly available for review? Thanks, Alexander ___________________________________ Alexander Schubert LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert +1(202)684-6806 From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Michael Karakash Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 9:51 PM To: subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated Dear IRT Members, We’ve updated the Geographic Names AGB section <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N1iLzfPp4IeTuTyO46T7WSjww7kpe_fzJIVOaSQ5...> based on the discussions held on the 3 October IRT call. As noted during that session, we will not be having another dedicated call on this topic but can continue to discuss this on-list if there are any comments or concerns. As a reminder, past agenda items and video/audio recordings from the previous session can be found on the IRT Community Wiki. <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=273449325> Thank you! Best, Michael
Thank you for bringing this up, Alexander. I think what you alluded to is very relevant, and in my personal capacity, I would urge Lars, Michael K. and their colleagues to consider propagating some language on this in the same way they proposed to address the issue brought up by Susan regarding what "a limited time frame to provide the documentation" under para 2.4 could mean (noting also Ruben's remark about Extended Evaluation). Kind regards, Justine On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 at 17:50, <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi members,
I guess few of us have ever dealt with the real-life issues of obtaining “government support” for a geo gTLD. I have: both in the last round, and right now for the 2nd round. And I urge us to remember one of the glaring issues that actually created quite a commotion in the 1st round:
The total absence of any timeline for such letter. In the last round one applicant had government support that was literally ‘years old’ – and allegedly even subsequently withdrawn: .africa. Remember what hassle that caused?
So, I recommend introducing a simple shelf-life requirement for the support letter. It is of course laudable when such support letter has been acquired years before the application submission. But even IF an applicant acquired such expression of support very early out – would it be an unbearable task for them to kindly ask the applicable entity to re-sign the letter? Because sometimes the responsible entity changes (e.g., a new major in a city) and shouldn’t they have a say, too? Or they changed their mind – e.g., after having been approached by a more suitable applicant. I think the signature under the support letter shouldn’t be older than e.g., 6 months before the application submission. The exact amount of time would of course be subject to discussion. But I assume we could save ourselves quite some troubles if we require to either sign (or re-sign an already signed) letter X months before the actual application submission.
I also urge to have the deadline requirement stipulated in the letter itself: so that the relevant Government entity is aware that they will have to resign the letter later! Something along the lines: “The signee is aware that ICANN will require that this letter of support (non-objection) has to be authorized (or re-authorized) within 6 months to the actual application submission.”
Has the example support letter draft been finalized already? Is the draft publicly available for review?
Thanks,
Alexander
___________________________________
Alexander Schubert
LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert
+1(202)684-6806
*From:* SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Michael Karakash *Sent:* Thursday, October 12, 2023 9:51 PM *To:* subpro-irt@icann.org *Subject:* [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated
Dear IRT Members,
We’ve updated the Geographic Names AGB section <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N1iLzfPp4IeTuTyO46T7WSjww7kpe_fzJIVOaSQ5...> based on the discussions held on the 3 October IRT call. As noted during that session, we will not be having another dedicated call on this topic but can continue to discuss this on-list if there are any comments or concerns.
As a reminder, past agenda items and video/audio recordings from the previous session can be found on the IRT Community Wiki. <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=273449325>
Thank you!
Best,
Michael _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
I agree as well but think 6 months is too short. It can be difficult to get a government entity to do anything and I think signing this letter will be low on the priority list. If an applicant is investing significant time and money in applying they shouldn’t have to scramble at the last minute to get the letter signed (or re-signed) and have everything be for naught if the government entity drags its feet. I think 12 or 18 months prior is more reasonable. Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Chair, Internet, Domain Name, eCommerce, and Social Media Practice Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305 On Oct 13, 2023, at 6:48 AM, Annebeth Lange via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote: *EXTERNAL TO GT* I agree with Alexander and Justine. It would be a good idea to set a time line to avoid problems. Best regards Annebeth 13. okt. 2023 kl. 12:35 skrev Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>: Thank you for bringing this up, Alexander. I think what you alluded to is very relevant, and in my personal capacity, I would urge Lars, Michael K. and their colleagues to consider propagating some language on this in the same way they proposed to address the issue brought up by Susan regarding what "a limited time frame to provide the documentation" under para 2.4 could mean (noting also Ruben's remark about Extended Evaluation). Kind regards, Justine On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 at 17:50, <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: Hi members, I guess few of us have ever dealt with the real-life issues of obtaining “government support” for a geo gTLD. I have: both in the last round, and right now for the 2nd round. And I urge us to remember one of the glaring issues that actually created quite a commotion in the 1st round: The total absence of any timeline for such letter. In the last round one applicant had government support that was literally ‘years old’ – and allegedly even subsequently withdrawn: .africa. Remember what hassle that caused? So, I recommend introducing a simple shelf-life requirement for the support letter. It is of course laudable when such support letter has been acquired years before the application submission. But even IF an applicant acquired such expression of support very early out – would it be an unbearable task for them to kindly ask the applicable entity to re-sign the letter? Because sometimes the responsible entity changes (e.g., a new major in a city) and shouldn’t they have a say, too? Or they changed their mind – e.g., after having been approached by a more suitable applicant. I think the signature under the support letter shouldn’t be older than e.g., 6 months before the application submission. The exact amount of time would of course be subject to discussion. But I assume we could save ourselves quite some troubles if we require to either sign (or re-sign an already signed) letter X months before the actual application submission. I also urge to have the deadline requirement stipulated in the letter itself: so that the relevant Government entity is aware that they will have to resign the letter later! Something along the lines: “The signee is aware that ICANN will require that this letter of support (non-objection) has to be authorized (or re-authorized) within 6 months to the actual application submission.” Has the example support letter draft been finalized already? Is the draft publicly available for review? Thanks, Alexander ___________________________________ Alexander Schubert LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert__;!!DUT...> +1(202)684-6806 From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Michael Karakash Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 9:51 PM To: subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated Dear IRT Members, We’ve updated the Geographic Names AGB section<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N1iLzfPp4IeT...> based on the discussions held on the 3 October IRT call. As noted during that session, we will not be having another dedicated call on this topic but can continue to discuss this on-list if there are any comments or concerns. As a reminder, past agenda items and video/audio recordings from the previous session can be found on the IRT Community Wiki.<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.actio...> Thank you! Best, Michael _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org<mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQseRS4M58$> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQsiWAS0WA$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQs8QzHoZA$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQseRS4M58$> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQsiWAS0WA$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQs8QzHoZA$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt... _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFP... ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ... ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.
Colleagues, Is there a middle ground here? Not only can it take time to get a government to respond, the longer the period between that endorsement and the submission date, the greater the possibility that the governmental context can change. The process also wants to be protected from an early endorsement that is no longer valid. Would the following work? The initial request (and negotiations) for endorsement would contain a proviso that the agreement would be re-initialed/signed/verified just prior to the submission of the proposal. The applicant would be responsible for making sure that the contact person/office and context were such that the re-initial/sign/verify process would go smoothly at submission, and the evaluation process would be secure in the knowledge that the context had not changed, risking making the endorsement questionable. Also, there would be no need for a specified time frame. Sam Lanfranco, NCSG On 10/13/2023 9:14 AM, trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT wrote:
I agree as well but think 6 months is too short. It can be difficult to get a government entity to do anything and I think signing this letter will be low on the priority list. If an applicant is investing significant time and money in applying they shouldn’t have to scramble at the last minute to get the letter signed (or re-signed) and have everything be for naught if the government entity drags its feet. I think 12 or 18 months prior is more reasonable.
Best Regards, * * * Marc H.Trachtenberg* Chair, Internet, Domain Name, eCommerce, and Social Media Practice Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305
On Oct 13, 2023, at 6:48 AM, Annebeth Lange via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
**EXTERNAL TO GT**
I agree with Alexander and Justine. It would be a good idea to set a time line to avoid problems.
Best regards Annebeth
13. okt. 2023 kl. 12:35 skrev Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>:
Thank you for bringing this up, Alexander.
I think what you alluded to is very relevant, and in my personal capacity, I would urge Lars, Michael K. and their colleagues to consider propagating some language on this in the same way they proposed to address the issue brought up by Susan regarding what "a limited time frame to provide the documentation" under para 2.4 could mean (noting also Ruben's remark about Extended Evaluation).
Kind regards, Justine * *
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 at 17:50, <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi members,
I guess few of us have ever dealt with the real-life issues of obtaining “government support” for a geo gTLD. I have: both in the last round, and right now for the 2^nd round. And I urge us to remember one of the glaring issues that actually created quite a commotion in the 1^st round:
The total absence of any timeline for such letter. In the last round one applicant had government support that was literally ‘years old’ – and allegedly even subsequently withdrawn: .africa. Remember what hassle that caused?
So, I recommend introducing a simple shelf-life requirement for the support letter. It is of course laudable when such support letter has been acquired years before the application submission. But even IF an applicant acquired such expression of support very early out – would it be an unbearable task for them to kindly ask the applicable entity to re-sign the letter? Because sometimes the responsible entity changes (e.g., a new major in a city) and shouldn’t they have a say, too? Or they changed their mind – e.g., after having been approached by a more suitable applicant. I think the signature under the support letter shouldn’t be older than e.g., 6 months before the application submission. The exact amount of time would of course be subject to discussion. But I assume we could save ourselves quite some troubles if we require to either sign (or re-sign an already signed) letter X months before the actual application submission.
I also urge to have the deadline requirement stipulated in the letter itself: so that the relevant Government entity is aware that they will have to resign the letter later! Something along the lines: “The signee is aware that ICANN will require that this letter of support (non-objection) has to be authorized (or re-authorized) within 6 months to the actual application submission.”
Has the example support letter draft been finalized already? Is the draft publicly available for review?
Thanks,
Alexander
___________________________________
Alexander Schubert
LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert__;!!DUT...>
+1(202)684-6806
*From:*SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Michael Karakash *Sent:* Thursday, October 12, 2023 9:51 PM *To:* subpro-irt@icann.org *Subject:* [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated
Dear IRT Members,
We’ve updated the Geographic Names AGB section <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N1iLzfPp4IeT...> based on the discussions held on the 3 October IRT call. As noted during that session, we will not be having another dedicated call on this topic but can continue to discuss this on-list if there are any comments or concerns.
As a reminder, past agenda items and video/audio recordings from the previous session can be found on the IRT Community Wiki. <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.actio...>
Thank you!
Best,
Michael
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt...>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFP...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt...>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFP...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt...
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFP... ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ... ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Sam Lanfranco, Prof Emeritus, York University, Internet Ecologist & Farmer; Web23.io; AshPiedmont Farm, South Bay, Prince Edward County, Ontario, Canada P:613-476-0429 C:416-816-2852 E:samlanfranco@gmail.com Lanfran@yorku.ca
I would just add that as anyone who deals with government knows, having a proviso saying that something will be re-signed later is not the same thing as actually getting it resigned later. There are many unrelated circumstances the government entity could be dealing with that could take precedence over this getting re-signed and I don’t think that the applicant should be burdened with having to go through this process with government twice. I don’t think 12 months (or even 18 months) before is so long that there is a material risk that the endorsement will have changed – at least no more risk than if the endorsement had been procured 6 months before. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> | View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> [Greenberg Traurig Logo] [US News Law Firm of the Year 2020 and 2022 for Trademark Law badge] From: Sam Lanfranco <samlanfranco@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 9:56 AM To: Trachtenberg, Marc H. (Shld-Chi-IP-Tech) <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>; abl@annebeth-lange.no Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated Colleagues, Is there a middle ground here? Not only can it take time to get a government to respond, the longer the period between that endorsement and the submission date, the greater the possibility that the governmental context can change. The process also wants to be protected from an early endorsement that is no longer valid. Would the following work? The initial request (and negotiations) for endorsement would contain a proviso that the agreement would be re-initialed/signed/verified just prior to the submission of the proposal. The applicant would be responsible for making sure that the contact person/office and context were such that the re-initial/sign/verify process would go smoothly at submission, and the evaluation process would be secure in the knowledge that the context had not changed, risking making the endorsement questionable. Also, there would be no need for a specified time frame. Sam Lanfranco, NCSG On 10/13/2023 9:14 AM, trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT wrote: I agree as well but think 6 months is too short. It can be difficult to get a government entity to do anything and I think signing this letter will be low on the priority list. If an applicant is investing significant time and money in applying they shouldn’t have to scramble at the last minute to get the letter signed (or re-signed) and have everything be for naught if the government entity drags its feet. I think 12 or 18 months prior is more reasonable. Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Chair, Internet, Domain Name, eCommerce, and Social Media Practice Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305 On Oct 13, 2023, at 6:48 AM, Annebeth Lange via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org><mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote: *EXTERNAL TO GT* I agree with Alexander and Justine. It would be a good idea to set a time line to avoid problems. Best regards Annebeth 13. okt. 2023 kl. 12:35 skrev Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com><mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>: Thank you for bringing this up, Alexander. I think what you alluded to is very relevant, and in my personal capacity, I would urge Lars, Michael K. and their colleagues to consider propagating some language on this in the same way they proposed to address the issue brought up by Susan regarding what "a limited time frame to provide the documentation" under para 2.4 could mean (noting also Ruben's remark about Extended Evaluation). Kind regards, Justine On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 at 17:50, <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: Hi members, I guess few of us have ever dealt with the real-life issues of obtaining “government support” for a geo gTLD. I have: both in the last round, and right now for the 2nd round. And I urge us to remember one of the glaring issues that actually created quite a commotion in the 1st round: The total absence of any timeline for such letter. In the last round one applicant had government support that was literally ‘years old’ – and allegedly even subsequently withdrawn: .africa. Remember what hassle that caused? So, I recommend introducing a simple shelf-life requirement for the support letter. It is of course laudable when such support letter has been acquired years before the application submission. But even IF an applicant acquired such expression of support very early out – would it be an unbearable task for them to kindly ask the applicable entity to re-sign the letter? Because sometimes the responsible entity changes (e.g., a new major in a city) and shouldn’t they have a say, too? Or they changed their mind – e.g., after having been approached by a more suitable applicant. I think the signature under the support letter shouldn’t be older than e.g., 6 months before the application submission. The exact amount of time would of course be subject to discussion. But I assume we could save ourselves quite some troubles if we require to either sign (or re-sign an already signed) letter X months before the actual application submission. I also urge to have the deadline requirement stipulated in the letter itself: so that the relevant Government entity is aware that they will have to resign the letter later! Something along the lines: “The signee is aware that ICANN will require that this letter of support (non-objection) has to be authorized (or re-authorized) within 6 months to the actual application submission.” Has the example support letter draft been finalized already? Is the draft publicly available for review? Thanks, Alexander ___________________________________ Alexander Schubert LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert__;!!DUT_...> +1(202)684-6806 From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Michael Karakash Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 9:51 PM To: subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated Dear IRT Members, We’ve updated the Geographic Names AGB section<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1N1iLzfPp4IeTu...> based on the discussions held on the 3 October IRT call. As noted during that session, we will not be having another dedicated call on this topic but can continue to discuss this on-list if there are any comments or concerns. As a reminder, past agenda items and video/audio recordings from the previous session can be found on the IRT Community Wiki.<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action...> Thank you! Best, Michael _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org<mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQseRS4M58$> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQsiWAS0WA$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQs8QzHoZA$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org<mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQseRS4M58$> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQsiWAS0WA$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQs8QzHoZA$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org<mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQseRS4M58$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQseRS4M58$> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQsiWAS0WA$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQsiWAS0WA$> ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQs8QzHoZA$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQs8QzHoZA$> ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org<mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!GucT6dKAFVR6_-Na0XepuALs89PaicQEAdr0PkmFZEelrKp10pkmF4YkBjvVQFqai28rQqC5CS9XanUlieMT5r50$> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!GucT6dKAFVR6_-Na0XepuALs89PaicQEAdr0PkmFZEelrKp10pkmF4YkBjvVQFqai28rQqC5CS9XanUliV4jlWty$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!GucT6dKAFVR6_-Na0XepuALs89PaicQEAdr0PkmFZEelrKp10pkmF4YkBjvVQFqai28rQqC5CS9XanUliXrl4iud$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Sam Lanfranco, Prof Emeritus, York University, Internet Ecologist & Farmer; Web23.io<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Web23.io__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!GucT6dKAFVR6_-Na0X...>; AshPiedmont Farm, South Bay, Prince Edward County, Ontario, Canada P:613-476-0429 C:416-816-2852 E: samlanfranco@gmail.com<mailto:samlanfranco@gmail.com> Lanfran@yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@yorku.ca>
Dear Marc, I agree with you when you say, “having a proviso saying that something will be re-signed later is not the same thing as actually getting it resigned later”. Albeit I might have expressed myself not clear enough – because I mean the opposite: I am not asking for the proviso to strong-arm the Government entity; essentially forcing them into submission. I just want to prevent that someone is sending chain letters of non-objection requests to hundreds of city majors (something that literally costs zero effort) a year or more before the application window opens – and the government has no knowledge that the signature that actually “counts” will have to be much closer to the actual application submission date. But I am not insisting on any proviso – we can leave it away. My best guess is that we will face entities that will apply for city gTLDs mainly to enter the ICANN contention set resolution – which is an auction. If they win the auction at a low price: great! A city-gTLD for a low amount. If they lose: GREAT: free money for zero effort! Some longtime local grassroots effort that is managed, financed, and owned by local city entities will then be forced to throw away a large swat of money just to secure the application – essentially paying ransom to the “gTLD speculator”. And said city might not have provided that letter of non-objection if they had evaluated the efforts of the local applicant group already. Exactly that happened with .africa: An early, premature support letter that then later in the game would have never been signed – but its mere existence was enough to support the application. I agree that “governments” act slowly – but city majors do act much faster. How about the following: If the government entity withdraws their letter of support before the application deadline – such letter would be illegible to support the application? We have such provision in the AGB for later stages of the geo gTLD life cycle – just not for the application phase. That would work, too. Thanks, Alexander ___________________________________ Alexander Schubert LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert +1(202)684-6806 From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 6:11 PM To: samlanfranco@gmail.com; abl@annebeth-lange.no Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated I would just add that as anyone who deals with government knows, having a proviso saying that something will be re-signed later is not the same thing as actually getting it resigned later. There are many unrelated circumstances the government entity could be dealing with that could take precedence over this getting re-signed and I don’t think that the applicant should be burdened with having to go through this process with government twice. I don’t think 12 months (or even 18 months) before is so long that there is a material risk that the endorsement will have changed – at least no more risk than if the endorsement had been procured 6 months before. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> trac@gtlaw.com | <http://www.gtlaw.com/> www.gtlaw.com | <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> View GT Biography From: Sam Lanfranco <samlanfranco@gmail.com <mailto:samlanfranco@gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 9:56 AM To: Trachtenberg, Marc H. (Shld-Chi-IP-Tech) <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> >; abl@annebeth-lange.no <mailto:abl@annebeth-lange.no> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated Colleagues, Is there a middle ground here? Not only can it take time to get a government to respond, the longer the period between that endorsement and the submission date, the greater the possibility that the governmental context can change. The process also wants to be protected from an early endorsement that is no longer valid. Would the following work? The initial request (and negotiations) for endorsement would contain a proviso that the agreement would be re-initialed/signed/verified just prior to the submission of the proposal. The applicant would be responsible for making sure that the contact person/office and context were such that the re-initial/sign/verify process would go smoothly at submission, and the evaluation process would be secure in the knowledge that the context had not changed, risking making the endorsement questionable. Also, there would be no need for a specified time frame. Sam Lanfranco, NCSG On 10/13/2023 9:14 AM, trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT wrote: I agree as well but think 6 months is too short. It can be difficult to get a government entity to do anything and I think signing this letter will be low on the priority list. If an applicant is investing significant time and money in applying they shouldn’t have to scramble at the last minute to get the letter signed (or re-signed) and have everything be for naught if the government entity drags its feet. I think 12 or 18 months prior is more reasonable. Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Chair, Internet, Domain Name, eCommerce, and Social Media Practice Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305 On Oct 13, 2023, at 6:48 AM, Annebeth Lange via SubPro-IRT <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote: *EXTERNAL TO GT* I agree with Alexander and Justine. It would be a good idea to set a time line to avoid problems. Best regards Annebeth 13. okt. 2023 kl. 12:35 skrev Justine Chew <mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>: Thank you for bringing this up, Alexander. I think what you alluded to is very relevant, and in my personal capacity, I would urge Lars, Michael K. and their colleagues to consider propagating some language on this in the same way they proposed to address the issue brought up by Susan regarding what "a limited time frame to provide the documentation" under para 2.4 could mean (noting also Ruben's remark about Extended Evaluation). Kind regards, Justine On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 at 17:50, <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: Hi members, I guess few of us have ever dealt with the real-life issues of obtaining “government support” for a geo gTLD. I have: both in the last round, and right now for the 2nd round. And I urge us to remember one of the glaring issues that actually created quite a commotion in the 1st round: The total absence of any timeline for such letter. In the last round one applicant had government support that was literally ‘years old’ – and allegedly even subsequently withdrawn: .africa. Remember what hassle that caused? So, I recommend introducing a simple shelf-life requirement for the support letter. It is of course laudable when such support letter has been acquired years before the application submission. But even IF an applicant acquired such expression of support very early out – would it be an unbearable task for them to kindly ask the applicable entity to re-sign the letter? Because sometimes the responsible entity changes (e.g., a new major in a city) and shouldn’t they have a say, too? Or they changed their mind – e.g., after having been approached by a more suitable applicant. I think the signature under the support letter shouldn’t be older than e.g., 6 months before the application submission. The exact amount of time would of course be subject to discussion. But I assume we could save ourselves quite some troubles if we require to either sign (or re-sign an already signed) letter X months before the actual application submission. I also urge to have the deadline requirement stipulated in the letter itself: so that the relevant Government entity is aware that they will have to resign the letter later! Something along the lines: “The signee is aware that ICANN will require that this letter of support (non-objection) has to be authorized (or re-authorized) within 6 months to the actual application submission.” Has the example support letter draft been finalized already? Is the draft publicly available for review? Thanks, Alexander ___________________________________ Alexander Schubert LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert__;!!DUT_...> +1(202)684-6806 From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Michael Karakash Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 9:51 PM To: subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated Dear IRT Members, We’ve updated the Geographic Names AGB section <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1N1iLzfPp4IeTu...> based on the discussions held on the 3 October IRT call. As noted during that session, we will not be having another dedicated call on this topic but can continue to discuss this on-list if there are any comments or concerns. As a reminder, past agenda items and video/audio recordings from the previous session can be found on the IRT Community Wiki. <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action...> Thank you! Best, Michael _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org <mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt_...> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPx...> ) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!...> ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org <mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt_...> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPx...> ) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!...> ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org <mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt_...> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFP... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPx...> ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!...> ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _____ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com <mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com> , and do not use or disseminate the information. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org <mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt_...> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPx...> ) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!...> ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Sam Lanfranco, Prof Emeritus, York University, Internet Ecologist & Farmer; Web23.io <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Web23.io__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!GucT6dKAFVR6_-Na0X...> ; AshPiedmont Farm, South Bay, Prince Edward County, Ontario, Canada P:613-476-0429 C:416-816-2852 E: samlanfranco@gmail.com <mailto:samlanfranco@gmail.com> Lanfran@yorku.ca <mailto:Lanfran@yorku.ca>
Alexander, For clarity, I didn’t mean that the proviso would strong-arm the Government entity essentially forcing them into submission. Rather I meant that it could be very difficult and time consuming to get government endorsement in the first place and that even if the government granted endorsement and agreed to re-sign 6 months before application submission, that there is nothing requiring the government to actually do the re-signing. It could require additional significant time an effort to get the re-signing, not because the government changed its mind, but because re-signing might be very low on its priority list and it might focus its attention on more important matters. This seems to me to be an unnecessary and undesirable burden to put on applicants. That said, I acknowledge the risk you outline below of the possible sending of chain letters and agree that there will many speculators applying in the next round (I actually think the majority of applications will be from speculators and that the failure to prohibit private auctions will result in the pollution of the next round into a speculation cesspool) and agree with your proposed approach whereby If the government entity withdraws their letter of support before the application deadline – such letter would be ineligible to support the application. Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> | View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> [Greenberg Traurig Logo] [US News Law Firm of the Year 2020 and 2022 for Trademark Law badge] From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of alexander@schubert.berlin Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 12:27 PM To: subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated Dear Marc, I agree with you when you say, “having a proviso saying that something will be re-signed later is not the same thing as actually getting it resigned later”. Albeit I might have expressed myself not clear enough – because I mean the opposite: I am not asking for the proviso to strong-arm the Government entity; essentially forcing them into submission. I just want to prevent that someone is sending chain letters of non-objection requests to hundreds of city majors (something that literally costs zero effort) a year or more before the application window opens – and the government has no knowledge that the signature that actually “counts” will have to be much closer to the actual application submission date. But I am not insisting on any proviso – we can leave it away. My best guess is that we will face entities that will apply for city gTLDs mainly to enter the ICANN contention set resolution – which is an auction. If they win the auction at a low price: great! A city-gTLD for a low amount. If they lose: GREAT: free money for zero effort! Some longtime local grassroots effort that is managed, financed, and owned by local city entities will then be forced to throw away a large swat of money just to secure the application – essentially paying ransom to the “gTLD speculator”. And said city might not have provided that letter of non-objection if they had evaluated the efforts of the local applicant group already. Exactly that happened with .africa: An early, premature support letter that then later in the game would have never been signed – but its mere existence was enough to support the application. I agree that “governments” act slowly – but city majors do act much faster. How about the following: If the government entity withdraws their letter of support before the application deadline – such letter would be illegible to support the application? We have such provision in the AGB for later stages of the geo gTLD life cycle – just not for the application phase. That would work, too. Thanks, Alexander ___________________________________ Alexander Schubert LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert__;!!DUT_...> +1(202)684-6806 From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 6:11 PM To: samlanfranco@gmail.com<mailto:samlanfranco@gmail.com>; abl@annebeth-lange.no<mailto:abl@annebeth-lange.no> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated I would just add that as anyone who deals with government knows, having a proviso saying that something will be re-signed later is not the same thing as actually getting it resigned later. There are many unrelated circumstances the government entity could be dealing with that could take precedence over this getting re-signed and I don’t think that the applicant should be burdened with having to go through this process with government twice. I don’t think 12 months (or even 18 months) before is so long that there is a material risk that the endorsement will have changed – at least no more risk than if the endorsement had been procured 6 months before. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> | View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> [Greenberg Traurig Logo] [US News Law Firm of the Year 2020 and 2022 for Trademark Law badge] From: Sam Lanfranco <samlanfranco@gmail.com<mailto:samlanfranco@gmail.com>> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 9:56 AM To: Trachtenberg, Marc H. (Shld-Chi-IP-Tech) <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>>; abl@annebeth-lange.no<mailto:abl@annebeth-lange.no> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated Colleagues, Is there a middle ground here? Not only can it take time to get a government to respond, the longer the period between that endorsement and the submission date, the greater the possibility that the governmental context can change. The process also wants to be protected from an early endorsement that is no longer valid. Would the following work? The initial request (and negotiations) for endorsement would contain a proviso that the agreement would be re-initialed/signed/verified just prior to the submission of the proposal. The applicant would be responsible for making sure that the contact person/office and context were such that the re-initial/sign/verify process would go smoothly at submission, and the evaluation process would be secure in the knowledge that the context had not changed, risking making the endorsement questionable. Also, there would be no need for a specified time frame. Sam Lanfranco, NCSG On 10/13/2023 9:14 AM, trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT wrote: I agree as well but think 6 months is too short. It can be difficult to get a government entity to do anything and I think signing this letter will be low on the priority list. If an applicant is investing significant time and money in applying they shouldn’t have to scramble at the last minute to get the letter signed (or re-signed) and have everything be for naught if the government entity drags its feet. I think 12 or 18 months prior is more reasonable. Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Chair, Internet, Domain Name, eCommerce, and Social Media Practice Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305 On Oct 13, 2023, at 6:48 AM, Annebeth Lange via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org><mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote: *EXTERNAL TO GT* I agree with Alexander and Justine. It would be a good idea to set a time line to avoid problems. Best regards Annebeth 13. okt. 2023 kl. 12:35 skrev Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com><mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>: Thank you for bringing this up, Alexander. I think what you alluded to is very relevant, and in my personal capacity, I would urge Lars, Michael K. and their colleagues to consider propagating some language on this in the same way they proposed to address the issue brought up by Susan regarding what "a limited time frame to provide the documentation" under para 2.4 could mean (noting also Ruben's remark about Extended Evaluation). Kind regards, Justine On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 at 17:50, <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: Hi members, I guess few of us have ever dealt with the real-life issues of obtaining “government support” for a geo gTLD. I have: both in the last round, and right now for the 2nd round. And I urge us to remember one of the glaring issues that actually created quite a commotion in the 1st round: The total absence of any timeline for such letter. In the last round one applicant had government support that was literally ‘years old’ – and allegedly even subsequently withdrawn: .africa. Remember what hassle that caused? So, I recommend introducing a simple shelf-life requirement for the support letter. It is of course laudable when such support letter has been acquired years before the application submission. But even IF an applicant acquired such expression of support very early out – would it be an unbearable task for them to kindly ask the applicable entity to re-sign the letter? Because sometimes the responsible entity changes (e.g., a new major in a city) and shouldn’t they have a say, too? Or they changed their mind – e.g., after having been approached by a more suitable applicant. I think the signature under the support letter shouldn’t be older than e.g., 6 months before the application submission. The exact amount of time would of course be subject to discussion. But I assume we could save ourselves quite some troubles if we require to either sign (or re-sign an already signed) letter X months before the actual application submission. I also urge to have the deadline requirement stipulated in the letter itself: so that the relevant Government entity is aware that they will have to resign the letter later! Something along the lines: “The signee is aware that ICANN will require that this letter of support (non-objection) has to be authorized (or re-authorized) within 6 months to the actual application submission.” Has the example support letter draft been finalized already? Is the draft publicly available for review? Thanks, Alexander ___________________________________ Alexander Schubert LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert__;!!DUT_...> +1(202)684-6806 From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Michael Karakash Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 9:51 PM To: subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated Dear IRT Members, We’ve updated the Geographic Names AGB section<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1N1iLzfPp4IeTu...> based on the discussions held on the 3 October IRT call. As noted during that session, we will not be having another dedicated call on this topic but can continue to discuss this on-list if there are any comments or concerns. As a reminder, past agenda items and video/audio recordings from the previous session can be found on the IRT Community Wiki.<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action...> Thank you! Best, Michael _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org<mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQseRS4M58$> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQsiWAS0WA$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQs8QzHoZA$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org<mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQseRS4M58$> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQsiWAS0WA$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQs8QzHoZA$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org<mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQseRS4M58$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQseRS4M58$> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQsiWAS0WA$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQsiWAS0WA$> ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQs8QzHoZA$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!HZjzdcrlRTVfhwyGdwckC63DQ-xayhwPPVqJWZJhtXxtZSLd67kxakHnmedTHTiOu8qb7NG6LqCmOPQs8QzHoZA$> ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org<mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!GucT6dKAFVR6_-Na0XepuALs89PaicQEAdr0PkmFZEelrKp10pkmF4YkBjvVQFqai28rQqC5CS9XanUlieMT5r50$> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!GucT6dKAFVR6_-Na0XepuALs89PaicQEAdr0PkmFZEelrKp10pkmF4YkBjvVQFqai28rQqC5CS9XanUliV4jlWty$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!GucT6dKAFVR6_-Na0XepuALs89PaicQEAdr0PkmFZEelrKp10pkmF4YkBjvVQFqai28rQqC5CS9XanUliXrl4iud$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Sam Lanfranco, Prof Emeritus, York University, Internet Ecologist & Farmer; Web23.io<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Web23.io__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!GucT6dKAFVR6_-Na0X...>; AshPiedmont Farm, South Bay, Prince Edward County, Ontario, Canada P:613-476-0429 C:416-816-2852 E: samlanfranco@gmail.com<mailto:samlanfranco@gmail.com> Lanfran@yorku.ca<mailto:Lanfran@yorku.ca>
Dear Marc, Nice – we start to get somewhere. Regarding the potentially too short timeframe: If we had chosen 6 months – and the AGB provides some 9 months extra time AFTER the application submission – then that would be ample time. But If others agree with you that any timeframe (even 15 months in my example) is “too short” – then maybe the provision to enable Governments to retract their support letter might be a solution, too. It is essentially the reversion of the duty: instead of forcing all city applicants to get their signature in a 6-month timeframe we would burden just the few that don’t want to be victim of speculation to get a retraction of some premature letter of non-objection. What do others think about the issue? Am I hyperventilating or do others see the risk of speculation, too? City gTLD applicants that have intense local footing and support should not have to fear having to pay ransom to speculators. In the last round this wasn’t too much of a problem, because nobody foresaw the commercial viability of these city gTLDs – and that there will be auctions. This time around the setting is very different. Thanks, Alexander ___________________________________ Alexander Schubert LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert +1(202)684-6806 From: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 9:05 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin; subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: RE: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated Alexander, For clarity, I didn’t mean that the proviso would strong-arm the Government entity essentially forcing them into submission. Rather I meant that it could be very difficult and time consuming to get government endorsement in the first place and that even if the government granted endorsement and agreed to re-sign 6 months before application submission, that there is nothing requiring the government to actually do the re-signing. It could require additional significant time an effort to get the re-signing, not because the government changed its mind, but because re-signing might be very low on its priority list and it might focus its attention on more important matters. This seems to me to be an unnecessary and undesirable burden to put on applicants. That said, I acknowledge the risk you outline below of the possible sending of chain letters and agree that there will many speculators applying in the next round (I actually think the majority of applications will be from speculators and that the failure to prohibit private auctions will result in the pollution of the next round into a speculation cesspool) and agree with your proposed approach whereby If the government entity withdraws their letter of support before the application deadline – such letter would be ineligible to support the application. Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> trac@gtlaw.com | <http://www.gtlaw.com/> www.gtlaw.com | <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> View GT Biography From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 12:27 PM To: subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated Dear Marc, I agree with you when you say, “having a proviso saying that something will be re-signed later is not the same thing as actually getting it resigned later”. Albeit I might have expressed myself not clear enough – because I mean the opposite: I am not asking for the proviso to strong-arm the Government entity; essentially forcing them into submission. I just want to prevent that someone is sending chain letters of non-objection requests to hundreds of city majors (something that literally costs zero effort) a year or more before the application window opens – and the government has no knowledge that the signature that actually “counts” will have to be much closer to the actual application submission date. But I am not insisting on any proviso – we can leave it away. My best guess is that we will face entities that will apply for city gTLDs mainly to enter the ICANN contention set resolution – which is an auction. If they win the auction at a low price: great! A city-gTLD for a low amount. If they lose: GREAT: free money for zero effort! Some longtime local grassroots effort that is managed, financed, and owned by local city entities will then be forced to throw away a large swat of money just to secure the application – essentially paying ransom to the “gTLD speculator”. And said city might not have provided that letter of non-objection if they had evaluated the efforts of the local applicant group already. Exactly that happened with .africa: An early, premature support letter that then later in the game would have never been signed – but its mere existence was enough to support the application. I agree that “governments” act slowly – but city majors do act much faster. How about the following: If the government entity withdraws their letter of support before the application deadline – such letter would be illegible to support the application? We have such provision in the AGB for later stages of the geo gTLD life cycle – just not for the application phase. That would work, too. Thanks, Alexander ___________________________________ Alexander Schubert LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert__;!!DUT_...> +1(202)684-6806 From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 6:11 PM To: samlanfranco@gmail.com <mailto:samlanfranco@gmail.com> ; abl@annebeth-lange.no <mailto:abl@annebeth-lange.no> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated I would just add that as anyone who deals with government knows, having a proviso saying that something will be re-signed later is not the same thing as actually getting it resigned later. There are many unrelated circumstances the government entity could be dealing with that could take precedence over this getting re-signed and I don’t think that the applicant should be burdened with having to go through this process with government twice. I don’t think 12 months (or even 18 months) before is so long that there is a material risk that the endorsement will have changed – at least no more risk than if the endorsement had been procured 6 months before. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> trac@gtlaw.com | <http://www.gtlaw.com/> www.gtlaw.com | <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> View GT Biography From: Sam Lanfranco <samlanfranco@gmail.com <mailto:samlanfranco@gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 9:56 AM To: Trachtenberg, Marc H. (Shld-Chi-IP-Tech) <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> >; abl@annebeth-lange.no <mailto:abl@annebeth-lange.no> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated Colleagues, Is there a middle ground here? Not only can it take time to get a government to respond, the longer the period between that endorsement and the submission date, the greater the possibility that the governmental context can change. The process also wants to be protected from an early endorsement that is no longer valid. Would the following work? The initial request (and negotiations) for endorsement would contain a proviso that the agreement would be re-initialed/signed/verified just prior to the submission of the proposal. The applicant would be responsible for making sure that the contact person/office and context were such that the re-initial/sign/verify process would go smoothly at submission, and the evaluation process would be secure in the knowledge that the context had not changed, risking making the endorsement questionable. Also, there would be no need for a specified time frame. Sam Lanfranco, NCSG On 10/13/2023 9:14 AM, trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT wrote: I agree as well but think 6 months is too short. It can be difficult to get a government entity to do anything and I think signing this letter will be low on the priority list. If an applicant is investing significant time and money in applying they shouldn’t have to scramble at the last minute to get the letter signed (or re-signed) and have everything be for naught if the government entity drags its feet. I think 12 or 18 months prior is more reasonable. Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Chair, Internet, Domain Name, eCommerce, and Social Media Practice Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305 On Oct 13, 2023, at 6:48 AM, Annebeth Lange via SubPro-IRT <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote: *EXTERNAL TO GT* I agree with Alexander and Justine. It would be a good idea to set a time line to avoid problems. Best regards Annebeth 13. okt. 2023 kl. 12:35 skrev Justine Chew <mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>: Thank you for bringing this up, Alexander. I think what you alluded to is very relevant, and in my personal capacity, I would urge Lars, Michael K. and their colleagues to consider propagating some language on this in the same way they proposed to address the issue brought up by Susan regarding what "a limited time frame to provide the documentation" under para 2.4 could mean (noting also Ruben's remark about Extended Evaluation). Kind regards, Justine On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 at 17:50, <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: Hi members, I guess few of us have ever dealt with the real-life issues of obtaining “government support” for a geo gTLD. I have: both in the last round, and right now for the 2nd round. And I urge us to remember one of the glaring issues that actually created quite a commotion in the 1st round: The total absence of any timeline for such letter. In the last round one applicant had government support that was literally ‘years old’ – and allegedly even subsequently withdrawn: .africa. Remember what hassle that caused? So, I recommend introducing a simple shelf-life requirement for the support letter. It is of course laudable when such support letter has been acquired years before the application submission. But even IF an applicant acquired such expression of support very early out – would it be an unbearable task for them to kindly ask the applicable entity to re-sign the letter? Because sometimes the responsible entity changes (e.g., a new major in a city) and shouldn’t they have a say, too? Or they changed their mind – e.g., after having been approached by a more suitable applicant. I think the signature under the support letter shouldn’t be older than e.g., 6 months before the application submission. The exact amount of time would of course be subject to discussion. But I assume we could save ourselves quite some troubles if we require to either sign (or re-sign an already signed) letter X months before the actual application submission. I also urge to have the deadline requirement stipulated in the letter itself: so that the relevant Government entity is aware that they will have to resign the letter later! Something along the lines: “The signee is aware that ICANN will require that this letter of support (non-objection) has to be authorized (or re-authorized) within 6 months to the actual application submission.” Has the example support letter draft been finalized already? Is the draft publicly available for review? Thanks, Alexander ___________________________________ Alexander Schubert LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert__;!!DUT_...> +1(202)684-6806 From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Michael Karakash Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 9:51 PM To: subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated Dear IRT Members, We’ve updated the Geographic Names AGB section <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1N1iLzfPp4IeTu...> based on the discussions held on the 3 October IRT call. As noted during that session, we will not be having another dedicated call on this topic but can continue to discuss this on-list if there are any comments or concerns. As a reminder, past agenda items and video/audio recordings from the previous session can be found on the IRT Community Wiki. <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action...> Thank you! Best, Michael _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org <mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt_...> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPx...> ) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!...> ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org <mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt_...> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPx...> ) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!...> ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org <mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt_...> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFP... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPx...> ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!...> ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _____ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com <mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com> , and do not use or disseminate the information. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org <mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt_...> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPx...> ) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!...> ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Sam Lanfranco, Prof Emeritus, York University, Internet Ecologist & Farmer; Web23.io <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Web23.io__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!GucT6dKAFVR6_-Na0X...> ; AshPiedmont Farm, South Bay, Prince Edward County, Ontario, Canada P:613-476-0429 C:416-816-2852 E: samlanfranco@gmail.com <mailto:samlanfranco@gmail.com> Lanfran@yorku.ca <mailto:Lanfran@yorku.ca>
Alexander writes: "How about the following: If the government entity withdraws their letter of support before the application deadline – such letter would be illegible to support the application? We have such provision in the AGB for later stages of the geo gTLD life cycle – just not for the application phase. That would work, too." This has the same problem as my suggestion. It still requires a second government action. What if the application process required the applicant, at the time of submission, to attest that there have been no material changes that would compromise the letter of support? If there were none, we'll and good. If there were changes, the applicant would have compromised their application with a false submission. There could be a grey area here, but when are there not risks of grey areas. Just a thought. Sam Lanfranco Internet Elder, Internet Ecologist, 416 816-2852 On Oct 13, 2023, 13:27, at 13:27, alexander@schubert.berlin wrote:
Dear Marc,
I agree with you when you say, “having a proviso saying that something will be re-signed later is not the same thing as actually getting it resigned later”.
Albeit I might have expressed myself not clear enough – because I mean the opposite:
I am not asking for the proviso to strong-arm the Government entity; essentially forcing them into submission. I just want to prevent that someone is sending chain letters of non-objection requests to hundreds of city majors (something that literally costs zero effort) a year or more before the application window opens – and the government has no knowledge that the signature that actually “counts” will have to be much closer to the actual application submission date. But I am not insisting on any proviso – we can leave it away.
My best guess is that we will face entities that will apply for city gTLDs mainly to enter the ICANN contention set resolution – which is an auction. If they win the auction at a low price: great! A city-gTLD for a low amount. If they lose: GREAT: free money for zero effort! Some longtime local grassroots effort that is managed, financed, and owned by local city entities will then be forced to throw away a large swat of money just to secure the application – essentially paying ransom to the “gTLD speculator”. And said city might not have provided that letter of non-objection if they had evaluated the efforts of the local applicant group already. Exactly that happened with .africa: An early, premature support letter that then later in the game would have never been signed – but its mere existence was enough to support the application. I agree that “governments” act slowly – but city majors do act much faster.
How about the following: If the government entity withdraws their letter of support before the application deadline – such letter would be illegible to support the application? We have such provision in the AGB for later stages of the geo gTLD life cycle – just not for the application phase. That would work, too.
Thanks,
Alexander
___________________________________
Alexander Schubert
LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert
+1(202)684-6806
From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 6:11 PM To: samlanfranco@gmail.com; abl@annebeth-lange.no Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated
I would just add that as anyone who deals with government knows, having a proviso saying that something will be re-signed later is not the same thing as actually getting it resigned later. There are many unrelated circumstances the government entity could be dealing with that could take precedence over this getting re-signed and I don’t think that the applicant should be burdened with having to go through this process with government twice. I don’t think 12 months (or even 18 months) before is so long that there is a material risk that the endorsement will have changed – at least no more risk than if the endorsement had been procured 6 months before.
Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder
Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020
M +1 773.677.3305 <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> trac@gtlaw.com | <http://www.gtlaw.com/> www.gtlaw.com | <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> View GT Biography
From: Sam Lanfranco <samlanfranco@gmail.com <mailto:samlanfranco@gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 9:56 AM To: Trachtenberg, Marc H. (Shld-Chi-IP-Tech) <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> >; abl@annebeth-lange.no <mailto:abl@annebeth-lange.no> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated
Colleagues,
Is there a middle ground here? Not only can it take time to get a government to respond, the longer the period between that endorsement and the submission date, the greater the possibility that the governmental context can change. The process also wants to be protected from an early endorsement that is no longer valid. Would the following work?
The initial request (and negotiations) for endorsement would contain a proviso that the agreement would be re-initialed/signed/verified just prior to the submission of the proposal. The applicant would be responsible for making sure that the contact person/office and context were such that the re-initial/sign/verify process would go smoothly at submission, and the evaluation process would be secure in the knowledge that the context had not changed, risking making the endorsement questionable. Also, there would be no need for a specified time frame.
Sam Lanfranco, NCSG
On 10/13/2023 9:14 AM, trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT wrote:
I agree as well but think 6 months is too short. It can be difficult to get a government entity to do anything and I think signing this letter will be low on the priority list. If an applicant is investing significant time and money in applying they shouldn’t have to scramble at the last minute to get the letter signed (or re-signed) and have everything be for naught if the government entity drags its feet. I think 12 or 18 months prior is more reasonable.
Best Regards,
Marc H.Trachtenberg
Chair, Internet, Domain Name, eCommerce, and Social Media Practice
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Office (312) 456-1020
Mobile (773) 677-3305
On Oct 13, 2023, at 6:48 AM, Annebeth Lange via SubPro-IRT <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
*EXTERNAL TO GT*
I agree with Alexander and Justine. It would be a good idea to set a time line to avoid problems.
Best regards
Annebeth
13. okt. 2023 kl. 12:35 skrev Justine Chew <mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>:
Thank you for bringing this up, Alexander.
I think what you alluded to is very relevant, and in my personal capacity, I would urge Lars, Michael K. and their colleagues to consider propagating some language on this in the same way they proposed to address the issue brought up by Susan regarding what "a limited time frame to provide the documentation" under para 2.4 could mean (noting also Ruben's remark about Extended Evaluation).
Kind regards, Justine
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 at 17:50, <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi members,
I guess few of us have ever dealt with the real-life issues of obtaining “government support” for a geo gTLD. I have: both in the last round, and right now for the 2nd round. And I urge us to remember one of the glaring issues that actually created quite a commotion in the 1st round:
The total absence of any timeline for such letter. In the last round one applicant had government support that was literally ‘years old’ – and allegedly even subsequently withdrawn: .africa. Remember what hassle that caused?
So, I recommend introducing a simple shelf-life requirement for the support letter. It is of course laudable when such support letter has been acquired years before the application submission. But even IF an applicant acquired such expression of support very early out – would it be an unbearable task for them to kindly ask the applicable entity to re-sign the letter? Because sometimes the responsible entity changes (e.g., a new major in a city) and shouldn’t they have a say, too? Or they changed their mind – e.g., after having been approached by a more suitable applicant. I think the signature under the support letter shouldn’t be older than e.g., 6 months before the application submission. The exact amount of time would of course be subject to discussion. But I assume we could save ourselves quite some troubles if we require to either sign (or re-sign an already signed) letter X months before the actual application submission.
I also urge to have the deadline requirement stipulated in the letter itself: so that the relevant Government entity is aware that they will have to resign the letter later! Something along the lines: “The signee is aware that ICANN will require that this letter of support (non-objection) has to be authorized (or re-authorized) within 6 months to the actual application submission.”
Has the example support letter draft been finalized already? Is the draft publicly available for review?
Thanks,
Alexander
___________________________________
Alexander Schubert
LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/LinkedIn.com/in/alexanderschubert__;!!DUT_...>
+1(202)684-6806
From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Michael Karakash Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 9:51 PM To: subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated
Dear IRT Members,
We’ve updated the Geographic Names AGB section <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1N1iLzfPp4IeTu...> based on the discussions held on the 3 October IRT call. As noted during that session, we will not be having another dedicated call on this topic but can continue to discuss this on-list if there are any comments or concerns.
As a reminder, past agenda items and video/audio recordings from the previous session can be found on the IRT Community Wiki. <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action...>
Thank you!
Best,
Michael
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org <mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt_...>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPx...> ) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!...> ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org <mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt_...>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPx...> ) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!...> ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org <mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt_...>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFP... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPx...> ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!...> ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_____
If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com <mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com> , and do not use or disseminate the information.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org <mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt_...>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPx...> ) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!...> ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Sam Lanfranco, Prof Emeritus, York University, Internet Ecologist & Farmer; Web23.io <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Web23.io__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!GucT6dKAFVR6_-Na0X...> ; AshPiedmont Farm, South Bay, Prince Edward County, Ontario, Canada P:613-476-0429 C:416-816-2852 E: samlanfranco@gmail.com <mailto:samlanfranco@gmail.com> Lanfran@yorku.ca <mailto:Lanfran@yorku.ca>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
I agree with this approach. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> | View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> [Greenberg Traurig Logo] [US News Law Firm of the Year 2020 and 2022 for Trademark Law badge] From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of samlanfranco@gmail.com Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 5:59 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated Alexander writes: "How about the following: If the government entity withdraws their letter of support before the application deadline – such letter would be illegible to support the application? We have such provision in the AGB for later stages of the geo gTLD life cycle – just not for the application phase. That would work, too." This has the same problem as my suggestion. It still requires a second government action. What if the application process required the applicant, at the time of submission, to attest that there have been no material changes that would compromise the letter of support? If there were none, we'll and good. If there were changes, the applicant would have compromised their application with a false submission. There could be a grey area here, but when are there not risks of grey areas. Just a thought. Sam Lanfranco Internet Elder, Internet Ecologist, 416 816-2852 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.
Hi,Thanks for your email. You wrote:This has the same problem as my suggestion. It still requires a second government action. What if the application process required the applicant, at the time of submission, to attest that there have been no material changes that would compromise the letter of support?No: in almost all cases the second approach (Government has the ability to retract a letter) doesn't require anything: some applicant acquired a letter of support very early on - nobody else tries to apply for the same city - everything is fine. The letter of support continues to be valid - neither the applicant nor the Government have to act at all. And the problem I want to mitigate has nothing to do with "changes that compromise the letter of support".Here the underlying problem again (you can skip the very long indented part if you know the underlying problem already in detail):In 2012 nobody knew at the time of application submission that city gTLDs would be financially successful and nobody knew that the contention set resolution would be an auction. Also: the application fees where prohibitive high at US $185,000. This landscape has now changed completely: there is a huge incentive trying to get into a city-gTLD contention set, because:The application fees will likely drop dramatically (hopefully not below US $100,000 - but maybe as low as $50k). For two applicants with letter of support (or non-objection) for the same city gTLD the AGB prescribes an auction as contention set resolution. If you win the auction at $500k - you have an entire city gTLD for a fairly low amount - and can either sell it to someone in the city (e.g. a media company) for profit or "milk" the TLD (sell premium domains at high prices, make money during the sunrise period with TM owners, etc) without any effort. If you lose the auction at $500k: you probably still get some of your application fees back AND the $500k as auction loser! Or you approach the other applicant (e.g. a city constituent managed, owned and financed local grassroots community effort with the backing of the local business community) and ask "ransom": offer to withdraw your application early for a cash payment! In such case you get almost all application fees back AND cash in on the ransom.I wanted to mitigate this scenario:Some 'grey actor' (maybe even 'bad actor') sending out hundreds of requests to sign a simple letter of non-objection to city governments in industrial countries (U.S., EU, UK, etc) very early out, e.g. early next year. Merely a letter that states basically "Once ICANN allows to apply for a gTLD '.yourcity' we intend to apply and subsequently operate it - so your businesses and organizations can have myname.yourcity domains at very low prices. Do you object such effort? If not then please sign this letter!"Sending out such letter to a few hundred city Governments is a simple and low cost effort. A certain percentage will sign the letter and return it: at such early time (e.g. early 2024) in most cases no local applicant entity will be yet visible to the city Government. So why not signing a letter that sounds very harmless?Then in 2026 the grey actor sits on a pile of such letters of non-objection, knows the application submission fees, can scout for local city based application efforts and target these strings. The grey actor will "make money" for sure. Already in 2012 (with high application fees, no knowledge about auctions and a very convoluted environment that made the application process very difficult) we had all kinds of efforts to use gTLD applications as "investment vehicle".Now:How do we tackle the problem? Most if not all geo gTLDs will be cities. I started (together with Dirk and Katrin) out to form such applicant entity already in 2006. As early as 2019 I formed an applicant entity for the next round - including lobbying at the city government level and within the business community (presenting in person to chambers and business associations). In the U.S.! Here their very predictable feedback:"We don't want 'somebody' to operate our city gTLD namespace with the priority to 'make money' - instead the gTLD should be managed with a focus on creating a maximum benefit for all city constituents. Example: tires.city, books.city or dentist.city shouldn't be auctioned off to 'somebody' who maybe sits far away in California and will just hold the domain for speculative reasons or to run some Amazon affiliate website (siphoning off revenues to online businesses outside of our city): instead we want to auction premium domains within our city business community so that these premium domains positively impact the local business community and keep revenues in the city. E.g. books.city supporting one or all bookstores in the city - and not the Amazon online bookstore. We want books to be sold locally - not via online store from far away. We want a tight community control. We are willing to fund the effort in return. The effort should be community owned, managed and funded. And non-profit. Like a chamber. Not profit maximization for the gTLD operator but positive community impact should guide the gTLD management. Especially the management of the impact domain names."Sorry for the long explanation: but do you now see the problem? How to make sure a city government has the explicit or implicit power to empower such local effort over some entity that just wants to cash in at auctions (or negotiate ransom outside of auctions) and that has solicited a simple letter of non-objection very early on (e.g. 2024)?Hence my suggestion that the signature under such letter of non-objection shouldn't be older than 6 months. If you are tight knit with your city government then getting a new signature on an older letter shouldn't take more than a few days. But even if it took a year: 6 months before application date PLUS seemingly 9 months 'late filing' per AGB - that's an extraordinary long period of time for getting a city major to sign a letter. At least for a city Government.Or allow the Government to retract a premature signed letter of non-objection if they want to support a local effort that wasn't visible at the time such letter was signed.We had exactly that problem in the 2012 round with .africa: ages old support letter from one applicant that allegedly had already been retracted - but the AGB had no specifications in that relation: a signed letter is a signed letter, period. Which resulted in an extraordinary vicious fight that caused intolerable delays and was very costly and exhausting for the applicants, ICANN and the community at large. Maybe we should have both:A minimum requirement for the age of the signature (6 months plus 9 months AGB late filing) and the stipulation that a retracted letter is insufficient for application. This provides a much better control to the city Government: the entity elected by their citizens to manage all aspects pertaining their city. Regards,Alexander _______________________________________Alexander Schubert www.linkedin.com/in/AlexanderSchubert+1(202)684-6806 -------- Original message --------From: samlanfranco@gmail.com Date: 14/10/23 01:59 (GMT+02:00) To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated Alexander writes: "How about the following: If the government entity withdraws their letter of support before the application deadline – such letter would be illegible to support the application? We have such provision in the AGB for later stages of the geo gTLD life cycle – just not for the application phase. That would work, too." This has the same problem as my suggestion. It still requires a second government action. What if the application process required the applicant, at the time of submission, to attest that there have been no material changes that would compromise the letter of support? If there were none, we'll and good. If there were changes, the applicant would have compromised their application with a false submission. There could be a grey area here, but when are there not risks of grey areas. Just a thought. Sam Lanfranco Internet Elder, Internet Ecologist, 416 816-2852
Alex, I think you are overcomplicating this. The cities have some responsibility for their own actions. Your experience shows that it is generally difficult to get the cities to sign the letter. But if some do easily without thinking about it then it’s on Them. Having the ability to revoke the non-opposition before application should be enough protection for them. That actually create a significant risk but the applicant who may have invested significantly in the application only to have the rug pulled out from them at the last minute by the city but I guess that’s a risk they will have to bear. But this ability to revoke the non-oppsition must end at the time the application is filed or the applicant is even further prejudiced by the late revocation after they paid their application fees. I say make the requirement that the applicant have the letter within 12 or 18 months of application and be done with it. In general I think we need to move toward simplicity and predictability. Every aspect of the process and program can’t be complicated. Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Chair, Internet, Domain Name, eCommerce, and Social Media Practice Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305 On Oct 14, 2023, at 1:02 AM, Alexander <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: *EXTERNAL TO GT* Hi, Thanks for your email. You wrote: This has the same problem as my suggestion. It still requires a second government action. What if the application process required the applicant, at the time of submission, to attest that there have been no material changes that would compromise the letter of support? No: in almost all cases the second approach (Government has the ability to retract a letter) doesn't require anything: some applicant acquired a letter of support very early on - nobody else tries to apply for the same city - everything is fine. The letter of support continues to be valid - neither the applicant nor the Government have to act at all. And the problem I want to mitigate has nothing to do with "changes that compromise the letter of support". Here the underlying problem again (you can skip the very long indented part if you know the underlying problem already in detail): In 2012 nobody knew at the time of application submission that city gTLDs would be financially successful and nobody knew that the contention set resolution would be an auction. Also: the application fees where prohibitive high at US $185,000. This landscape has now changed completely: there is a huge incentive trying to get into a city-gTLD contention set, because: The application fees will likely drop dramatically (hopefully not below US $100,000 - but maybe as low as $50k). For two applicants with letter of support (or non-objection) for the same city gTLD the AGB prescribes an auction as contention set resolution. If you win the auction at $500k - you have an entire city gTLD for a fairly low amount - and can either sell it to someone in the city (e.g. a media company) for profit or "milk" the TLD (sell premium domains at high prices, make money during the sunrise period with TM owners, etc) without any effort. If you lose the auction at $500k: you probably still get some of your application fees back AND the $500k as auction loser! Or you approach the other applicant (e.g. a city constituent managed, owned and financed local grassroots community effort with the backing of the local business community) and ask "ransom": offer to withdraw your application early for a cash payment! In such case you get almost all application fees back AND cash in on the ransom. I wanted to mitigate this scenario: Some 'grey actor' (maybe even 'bad actor') sending out hundreds of requests to sign a simple letter of non-objection to city governments in industrial countries (U.S., EU, UK, etc) very early out, e.g. early next year. Merely a letter that states basically "Once ICANN allows to apply for a gTLD '.yourcity' we intend to apply and subsequently operate it - so your businesses and organizations can have myname.yourcity domains at very low prices. Do you object such effort? If not then please sign this letter!" Sending out such letter to a few hundred city Governments is a simple and low cost effort. A certain percentage will sign the letter and return it: at such early time (e.g. early 2024) in most cases no local applicant entity will be yet visible to the city Government. So why not signing a letter that sounds very harmless? Then in 2026 the grey actor sits on a pile of such letters of non-objection, knows the application submission fees, can scout for local city based application efforts and target these strings. The grey actor will "make money" for sure. Already in 2012 (with high application fees, no knowledge about auctions and a very convoluted environment that made the application process very difficult) we had all kinds of efforts to use gTLD applications as "investment vehicle". Now: How do we tackle the problem? Most if not all geo gTLDs will be cities. I started (together with Dirk and Katrin) out to form such applicant entity already in 2006. As early as 2019 I formed an applicant entity for the next round - including lobbying at the city government level and within the business community (presenting in person to chambers and business associations). In the U.S.! Here their very predictable feedback: "We don't want 'somebody' to operate our city gTLD namespace with the priority to 'make money' - instead the gTLD should be managed with a focus on creating a maximum benefit for all city constituents. Example: tires.city<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tires.city__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjzRB...>, books.city<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://books.city__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjzRB...> or dentist.city<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dentist.city__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjz...> shouldn't be auctioned off to 'somebody' who maybe sits far away in California and will just hold the domain for speculative reasons or to run some Amazon affiliate website (siphoning off revenues to online businesses outside of our city): instead we want to auction premium domains within our city business community so that these premium domains positively impact the local business community and keep revenues in the city. E.g. books.city<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://books.city__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjzRB...> supporting one or all bookstores in the city - and not the Amazon online bookstore. We want books to be sold locally - not via online store from far away. We want a tight community control. We are willing to fund the effort in return. The effort should be community owned, managed and funded. And non-profit. Like a chamber. Not profit maximization for the gTLD operator but positive community impact should guide the gTLD management. Especially the management of the impact domain names." Sorry for the long explanation: but do you now see the problem? How to make sure a city government has the explicit or implicit power to empower such local effort over some entity that just wants to cash in at auctions (or negotiate ransom outside of auctions) and that has solicited a simple letter of non-objection very early on (e.g. 2024)? Hence my suggestion that the signature under such letter of non-objection shouldn't be older than 6 months. If you are tight knit with your city government then getting a new signature on an older letter shouldn't take more than a few days. But even if it took a year: 6 months before application date PLUS seemingly 9 months 'late filing' per AGB - that's an extraordinary long period of time for getting a city major to sign a letter. At least for a city Government. Or allow the Government to retract a premature signed letter of non-objection if they want to support a local effort that wasn't visible at the time such letter was signed. We had exactly that problem in the 2012 round with .africa: ages old support letter from one applicant that allegedly had already been retracted - but the AGB had no specifications in that relation: a signed letter is a signed letter, period. Which resulted in an extraordinary vicious fight that caused intolerable delays and was very costly and exhausting for the applicants, ICANN and the community at large. Maybe we should have both: A minimum requirement for the age of the signature (6 months plus 9 months AGB late filing) and the stipulation that a retracted letter is insufficient for application. This provides a much better control to the city Government: the entity elected by their citizens to manage all aspects pertaining their city. Regards, Alexander _______________________________________ Alexander Schubert www.linkedin.com/in/AlexanderSchubert<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.linkedin.com/in/AlexanderSchubert__;!...> +1(202)684-6806 -------- Original message -------- From: samlanfranco@gmail.com Date: 14/10/23 01:59 (GMT+02:00) To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated Alexander writes: "How about the following: If the government entity withdraws their letter of support before the application deadline – such letter would be illegible to support the application? We have such provision in the AGB for later stages of the geo gTLD life cycle – just not for the application phase. That would work, too." This has the same problem as my suggestion. It still requires a second government action. What if the application process required the applicant, at the time of submission, to attest that there have been no material changes that would compromise the letter of support? If there were none, we'll and good. If there were changes, the applicant would have compromised their application with a false submission. There could be a grey area here, but when are there not risks of grey areas. Just a thought. Sam Lanfranco Internet Elder, Internet Ecologist, 416 816-2852 _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt... _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFP... ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ... ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.
Good evening I have a lot of sympathy for simplicity on this issue; I think a timeline of 12 months should be appropriate; would be (I like to think) in the UK; Best Nigel From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 3:07 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated Alex, I think you are overcomplicating this. The cities have some responsibility for their own actions. Your experience shows that it is generally difficult to get the cities to sign the letter. But if some do easily without thinking about it then it’s on Them. Having the ability to revoke the non-opposition before application should be enough protection for them. That actually create a significant risk but the applicant who may have invested significantly in the application only to have the rug pulled out from them at the last minute by the city but I guess that’s a risk they will have to bear. But this ability to revoke the non-oppsition must end at the time the application is filed or the applicant is even further prejudiced by the late revocation after they paid their application fees. I say make the requirement that the applicant have the letter within 12 or 18 months of application and be done with it. In general I think we need to move toward simplicity and predictability. Every aspect of the process and program can’t be complicated. Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Chair, Internet, Domain Name, eCommerce, and Social Media Practice Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305 On Oct 14, 2023, at 1:02 AM, Alexander <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: *EXTERNAL TO GT* Hi, Thanks for your email. You wrote: This has the same problem as my suggestion. It still requires a second government action. What if the application process required the applicant, at the time of submission, to attest that there have been no material changes that would compromise the letter of support? No: in almost all cases the second approach (Government has the ability to retract a letter) doesn't require anything: some applicant acquired a letter of support very early on - nobody else tries to apply for the same city - everything is fine. The letter of support continues to be valid - neither the applicant nor the Government have to act at all. And the problem I want to mitigate has nothing to do with "changes that compromise the letter of support". Here the underlying problem again (you can skip the very long indented part if you know the underlying problem already in detail): In 2012 nobody knew at the time of application submission that city gTLDs would be financially successful and nobody knew that the contention set resolution would be an auction. Also: the application fees where prohibitive high at US $185,000. This landscape has now changed completely: there is a huge incentive trying to get into a city-gTLD contention set, because: The application fees will likely drop dramatically (hopefully not below US $100,000 - but maybe as low as $50k). For two applicants with letter of support (or non-objection) for the same city gTLD the AGB prescribes an auction as contention set resolution. If you win the auction at $500k - you have an entire city gTLD for a fairly low amount - and can either sell it to someone in the city (e.g. a media company) for profit or "milk" the TLD (sell premium domains at high prices, make money during the sunrise period with TM owners, etc) without any effort. If you lose the auction at $500k: you probably still get some of your application fees back AND the $500k as auction loser! Or you approach the other applicant (e.g. a city constituent managed, owned and financed local grassroots community effort with the backing of the local business community) and ask "ransom": offer to withdraw your application early for a cash payment! In such case you get almost all application fees back AND cash in on the ransom. I wanted to mitigate this scenario: Some 'grey actor' (maybe even 'bad actor') sending out hundreds of requests to sign a simple letter of non-objection to city governments in industrial countries (U.S., EU, UK, etc) very early out, e.g. early next year. Merely a letter that states basically "Once ICANN allows to apply for a gTLD '.yourcity' we intend to apply and subsequently operate it - so your businesses and organizations can have myname.yourcity domains at very low prices. Do you object such effort? If not then please sign this letter!" Sending out such letter to a few hundred city Governments is a simple and low cost effort. A certain percentage will sign the letter and return it: at such early time (e.g. early 2024) in most cases no local applicant entity will be yet visible to the city Government. So why not signing a letter that sounds very harmless? Then in 2026 the grey actor sits on a pile of such letters of non-objection, knows the application submission fees, can scout for local city based application efforts and target these strings. The grey actor will "make money" for sure. Already in 2012 (with high application fees, no knowledge about auctions and a very convoluted environment that made the application process very difficult) we had all kinds of efforts to use gTLD applications as "investment vehicle". Now: How do we tackle the problem? Most if not all geo gTLDs will be cities. I started (together with Dirk and Katrin) out to form such applicant entity already in 2006. As early as 2019 I formed an applicant entity for the next round - including lobbying at the city government level and within the business community (presenting in person to chambers and business associations). In the U.S.! Here their very predictable feedback: "We don't want 'somebody' to operate our city gTLD namespace with the priority to 'make money' - instead the gTLD should be managed with a focus on creating a maximum benefit for all city constituents. Example: tires.city<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tires.city__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjzRB...>, books.city<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://books.city__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjzRB...> or dentist.city<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dentist.city__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjz...> shouldn't be auctioned off to 'somebody' who maybe sits far away in California and will just hold the domain for speculative reasons or to run some Amazon affiliate website (siphoning off revenues to online businesses outside of our city): instead we want to auction premium domains within our city business community so that these premium domains positively impact the local business community and keep revenues in the city. E.g. books.city<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://books.city__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjzRB...> supporting one or all bookstores in the city - and not the Amazon online bookstore. We want books to be sold locally - not via online store from far away. We want a tight community control. We are willing to fund the effort in return. The effort should be community owned, managed and funded. And non-profit. Like a chamber. Not profit maximization for the gTLD operator but positive community impact should guide the gTLD management. Especially the management of the impact domain names." Sorry for the long explanation: but do you now see the problem? How to make sure a city government has the explicit or implicit power to empower such local effort over some entity that just wants to cash in at auctions (or negotiate ransom outside of auctions) and that has solicited a simple letter of non-objection very early on (e.g. 2024)? Hence my suggestion that the signature under such letter of non-objection shouldn't be older than 6 months. If you are tight knit with your city government then getting a new signature on an older letter shouldn't take more than a few days. But even if it took a year: 6 months before application date PLUS seemingly 9 months 'late filing' per AGB - that's an extraordinary long period of time for getting a city major to sign a letter. At least for a city Government. Or allow the Government to retract a premature signed letter of non-objection if they want to support a local effort that wasn't visible at the time such letter was signed. We had exactly that problem in the 2012 round with .africa: ages old support letter from one applicant that allegedly had already been retracted - but the AGB had no specifications in that relation: a signed letter is a signed letter, period. Which resulted in an extraordinary vicious fight that caused intolerable delays and was very costly and exhausting for the applicants, ICANN and the community at large. Maybe we should have both: A minimum requirement for the age of the signature (6 months plus 9 months AGB late filing) and the stipulation that a retracted letter is insufficient for application. This provides a much better control to the city Government: the entity elected by their citizens to manage all aspects pertaining their city. Regards, Alexander _______________________________________ Alexander Schubert www.linkedin.com/in/AlexanderSchubert<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.linkedin.com/in/AlexanderSchubert__;!...> +1(202)684-6806 -------- Original message -------- From: samlanfranco@gmail.com<mailto:samlanfranco@gmail.com> Date: 14/10/23 01:59 (GMT+02:00) To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated Alexander writes: "How about the following: If the government entity withdraws their letter of support before the application deadline – such letter would be illegible to support the application? We have such provision in the AGB for later stages of the geo gTLD life cycle – just not for the application phase. That would work, too." This has the same problem as my suggestion. It still requires a second government action. What if the application process required the applicant, at the time of submission, to attest that there have been no material changes that would compromise the letter of support? If there were none, we'll and good. If there were changes, the applicant would have compromised their application with a false submission. There could be a grey area here, but when are there not risks of grey areas. Just a thought. Sam Lanfranco Internet Elder, Internet Ecologist, 416 816-2852 _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org<mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjzRB04gLVq-oy-JJDfESzKMKF2FbAPA4h170Ef3mUdC4uC6GjgIJjQE5m28k_5_ru873Un1-GEND6o9aF$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjzRB04gLVq-oy-JJDfESzKMKF2FbAPA4h170Ef3mUdC4uC6GjgIJjQE5m28k_5_ru873Un1-GEND6o9aF$> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjzRB04gLVq-oy-JJDfESzKMKF2FbAPA4h170Ef3mUdC4uC6GjgIJjQE5m28k_5_ru873Un1-GEOHgNhyU$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjzRB04gLVq-oy-JJDfESzKMKF2FbAPA4h170Ef3mUdC4uC6GjgIJjQE5m28k_5_ru873Un1-GEOHgNhyU$> ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjzRB04gLVq-oy-JJDfESzKMKF2FbAPA4h170Ef3mUdC4uC6GjgIJjQE5m28k_5_ru873Un1-GEL61nQ7b$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjzRB04gLVq-oy-JJDfESzKMKF2FbAPA4h170Ef3mUdC4uC6GjgIJjQE5m28k_5_ru873Un1-GEL61nQ7b$> ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information.
Thank you for the mail. I am reading the responses. A 2012 World Intellectual Property Organization [WIPO] Magazine article on The Evolving Domain Name Landscape wrote: “Only time will tell what the impact of ICANN’s introduction of over 1,000 new gTLDS will be on brand owners and the internet-using public.” There are several articles and many case studies since then. WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center has very authentic documentation of several cases. In 2014 alone there were 2000+ cases. Towards "dot.anything" global village that internet makes happen, there is a need for: #1. Appropriate Principles I suggest consulting again the August 18, 1997 document from the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration that outlines the appropriate principles for good governance on the Internet. Geographical Names are more than strings. They need very special set of principles. <https://www.ntia.gov/> #2. Transparent criteria that should be appropriate for the types of risk associated with the TLD, and should not set anti-competitive or discriminatory conditions relating to access by third parties Sincerely, Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ________________________________ From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Michael Karakash <michael.karakash@icann.org> Sent: 13 October 2023 00:20 To: subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated Dear IRT Members, We’ve updated the Geographic Names AGB section<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N1iLzfPp4IeTuTyO46T7WSjww7kpe_fzJIVOaSQ5...> based on the discussions held on the 3 October IRT call. As noted during that session, we will not be having another dedicated call on this topic but can continue to discuss this on-list if there are any comments or concerns. As a reminder, past agenda items and video/audio recordings from the previous session can be found on the IRT Community Wiki.<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=273449325> Thank you! Best, Michael
participants (10)
-
Alexander -
alexander＠schubert.berlin
-
Annebeth Lange -
gopal -
Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) -
Justine Chew -
Michael Karakash -
Sam Lanfranco -
samlanfranco＠gmail.com
-
trachtenbergm＠gtlaw.com