[lac-discuss-es] [Gnso-newg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 09 May 2018
Sergio Salinas Porto
presidencia en internauta.org.ar
Vie Mayo 11 07:47:57 UTC 2018
Gracias Adrián por este aporte. Muchos de nosotros tiempo atrás estuvimos
involucrados en este tema y presentamos algunos documentos con nuestras
posiciones sobre este tema (.patagonia, .amazonas, .cba). Coincido con vos
en que sería muy importante que este punto y su impacto en los usuarios
finales de la región sea tomado desde un trabajo serio y metódico por la
comunidad de LACRALO.
Por mi parte estare atento a sumarme al trabajo que definamos
colectivamente en la región.
Abrazo!
Sergio Salinas Porto Presidente Internauta Argentina Asociación Argentina
de Usuarios de Internet/FeTIA/CTA FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de
Usuarios de Internet
El mié., 9 de may. de 2018 14:37, Adrian Carballo <ainfodata en gmail.com>
escribió:
> Estimados colegas,
>
> Espero que este mensaje los encuentre bien.
>
> He participado en la llamada del WT5 sobre nombres geográficos en la nueva
> ronda de gTLDs donde hubo una discusión activa continuando con una larga
> lista de contribuciones en la lista de emails del mismo grupo.
>
> En este sentido quisiera resaltar algunos temas que me parecen de gran
> importancia para nuestra región e invitar a otros colegas de nuestro RALO a
> participar activamente:
>
> - un TLD es un identificador único, en tal sentido si el nombre de una
> ciudad, region o subregion es solicitado como TLD se deberían tener
> consideraciones en relación a su impacto tanto en usuarios finales como en
> la comunidad relevante al nombre de ciudad o geografico.
>
> - La propuesta de algunos miembros del GAC de un contacto previo entre
> aplicante y la comunidad, quiza materializada en una carta de
> consentimiento por parte de la autoridad relevante, parece ser una buena
> solución. De esta manera ambas partes estarían informadas evitando
> sorpresas que luego se traducen en conflictos (algunos de los cuales
> todavia persisten y no se han resuelto desde 2012).
>
> Dado que algunos de los conflictos de la primera ronda impactaron
> directamente a nuestra región (amazon, patagonia) creo que resulta de valor
> involucrarse en el debate y proponer soluciones cretativas a las reglas que
> permitan proteger nombres geográficos y de ciudades que son importantes
> para nuestra comunidad.
>
> Reenvío adjunto las notas de la llamada de hoy y quedo atento en caso que
> haya alguna consulta sobre este tema.
>
> Saludos cordiales,
> Adrián Carballo
> Fundación Incluirme
>
>
>
> 2018-05-09 11:18 GMT-04:00 Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund en icann.org>:
>
>> Dear Work Track 5 members,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (09
>> May). *These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate
>> through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording,
>> transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: *
>> https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-02-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Work+Track+5.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> See also the attached slides.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Julie
>>
>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *Notes/Action Items:*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Action Items:* WT5 member should continue the discussion on the list.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Notes:*
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Review Agenda/Update SOIs: No SOI Updates
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. Continue Discussion on City Names (Non-Capitol City Names):
>>
>>
>>
>> Slide 4: Reviewing the Email List Discussion:
>>
>>
>>
>> - There has been significant volume on the mailing list with strong
>> advocacy for different positions with respect to the treatment of city
>> names and geographic names more broadly.
>> - Key area of disagreement – who has rights in determining which
>> applications with a connection to city name can go forward?
>> - From one perspective, any rights granted through the application
>> process should be based on international law. If no international law
>> exists granting special rights to governments or other parties, no
>> corresponding rights should exist through mechanisms in New gTLD Program.
>> - From another perspective, national law, public policy, history,
>> and public interest considerations provide a basis for granting rights to
>> governments through mechanisms in the New gTLD Program.
>> - There are also different perspectives on the scope and
>> applicability of trademark law in this discussion relative to and in the
>> context of other laws.
>> - The co-leaders acknowledge these different views but debate about
>> these positions will not be the focus of the call today.
>>
>>
>>
>> Slide 5: Objectives and Interests:
>>
>>
>>
>> During the Geographic Names Session at ICANN59, facilitators identified
>> key interests for different groups. Are these still accurate?
>>
>>
>>
>> Governments:
>>
>> - Protect national identity + important subnational places
>> - Avoid confusion between government/national TLDs and gTLDs
>> - Maintain consent/non-objection authority on important strings
>>
>> ccNSO:
>>
>> - Avoid confusion between ccTLDs and gTLDs and maintain market for
>> ccTLDs
>>
>> New gTLD applicants:
>>
>> - Expand range of potentially available strings
>> - Ensure a clear, fair, predictable + timely decision making process
>>
>> Brand Applicants:
>>
>> - Enable, protect and use strings that support brand identity,
>> including those that coincidentally match geographically significant terms
>>
>>
>>
>> Slide 7: Proposals City Names (Non-Capital Cities):
>>
>>
>>
>> Examples of proposals made by Work Track members so far:
>>
>> - Require government support/non-objection only when used in the
>> geographic context (current AGB)
>> - Require government support/non-objection even when intended use is
>> not related to geography
>> - Create a list of cities greater than a certain size and reserve
>> those cities for use by the people of that city (variant: require consent
>> non/objection for top x cities in a country, by population)
>> - Handle all third-party concerns with an application using
>> objections processes. Objections processes must refer to international law,
>> domestic law, ISO standards or other objective measures.
>> - Create incentives to bring all parties “to the table” when intended
>> use is non-geographic, for example agreements to allow the use of second-
>> level strings (or the reservation of second level strings) where there is
>> an inherent association with the government / local community.
>>
>> How can we expand on these proposals? Use elements of them in
>> combination? Other ideas?
>>
>>
>>
>> Discussion:
>>
>> -- Concerning the question of whether the key interests for different
>> groups are still accurate. Probably too narrow with respect to the Brand
>> applicants.
>>
>> -- Avoid confusion for the end users.
>>
>> -- Good start, but seems to be missing key components – non-commercial
>> users’ concerns: ever expanding government control over the Internet and
>> freedom of expression rights.
>>
>> -- Framework for 2012 round was a good compromise, although there could
>> be improvements. Need to look forward and consider how this framework
>> worked.
>>
>> -- Doesn’t seem to be general agreement on the principle that if an
>> applicant desires to use a string that has geographic significance (whether
>> on a list or not) in a manner that corresponds to the geographic
>> significance, then they need a letter of non-objection or consent. Need to
>> think outside the box for solutions.
>>
>> -- Need to define what government means.
>>
>> -- Letter of non-objection lets the applicant get in touch with the
>> relevant public authorities.
>>
>> -- It is very important to keep in mind the context or proposed use of a
>> new gTLD. If the gTLD is proposed to be used or a context unrelated to a
>> geographic name or a term of geographic significance then file for a gTLD.
>> But if it is completely unrelated – such as Berlin for Shoes – then it is
>> no longer a geographic term or one of geographic significance. A proposed
>> term for a gTLD that may be identical to a geographic term may not have a
>> geographic significance.
>>
>> -- Think about creative ways to get everyone to the table early, if not
>> the letter of non-objection.
>>
>> -- Are there ways we can bring everyone to the table without it becoming
>> a veto right – such as a true consultation?
>>
>> -- Also how to avoid this becoming a tip off to an entity that wasn’t
>> planning to apply for the name, but now might?
>>
>> -- Need a solution that is not narrow, but will be flexible for the
>> future.
>>
>>
>>
>> From the chat:
>>
>> -- from Robin Gross to All Participants: I would add to the list the
>> concern for freedom of expression rights relative to other laws.
>>
>> -- from Robin Gross to All Participants: There is also the perspective of
>> consumers who care about expanding govt power over the Internet are mainly
>> concerned about free expression. They don't fit neatly into any of the
>> three interests listed.
>>
>> -- from Ali Kassim to All Participants: Should a Multi-Stakeholder Model
>> be something that is embeded into these applications? Or it already a
>> factor in these applications. Because of the fact that applications and
>> maintaining of registries is not a cheap exercise could we consider this
>> model?
>>
>> -- from Alexander Schubert to All Participants: We also have community /
>> constituent groups in the city - and they want to create the city gTLD! So
>> neither a registry operator nor a city Government - but a stakeholder group
>> in the city! Which is the IDEAL case as they can FUND and MARKET the gTLD
>> much better than anybody else!
>>
>> --- - from Ashley Heineman to All Participants: Just to be clear, these
>> are views of *some* governments. Not all governments have these concerns.
>>
>> from Ashley Heineman to All Participants: Also - not all governments are
>> wanting to maintain consent/non-objection authority on important strings.
>>
>> -- from Taylor Bentley to All Participants: +1 Ashley, the possibility
>> for a government to support, and view an expansion as a positive
>> contribution to national identity and economic activity (via tourism, local
>> branding etc.)
>>
>> -- from Nick Wenban-Smith to All Participants: I think the point about
>> freedom of expression is a good one to add to the record. Of course once a
>> particular term is registered as a gTLD by a private body for it's
>> exclusive use then it will be blocked in perpetuity for use by any
>> communities to which it might relate. Difficult balancing required!
>>
>> -- from jeff neuman to All Participants: @Jorge - for terms not in the
>> AGB, and not intended to be used in conjunction with the potential
>> geographic significance of the term, that there is agreement that a letter
>> of non-objection is needed
>>
>> -- from Katrin Ohlmer to All Participants: Also, end users might be
>> confused if some geo names are "real" geoTLDs and some are not.; e.g.
>> .berlin is a GeoTLD where they are able to participate in, and .munic is a
>> BrandTLD where only the Munic LLC Company can register domain names.
>>
>> -- from jeff neuman to All Participants: +1 to @Jorge on how great
>> participation has been on the list
>>
>> -- from Ann-Cathrin Marcussen to All Participants: Support to Jorge from
>> me.
>>
>> -- from Justine Chew to All Participants: agree with the jorge. I found
>> the conversations in the lists useful. I am now somewhat persuaded with on
>> the need for non-objection letters.
>>
>> -- from Robin Gross to All Participants: Important to remember that
>> people have a legal right to use a word that refers to a geographic term.
>> We can comment on and say things about geo terms. We just don't have the
>> right to misrepresent our connection to that term.
>>
>> -- from jeff neuman to All Participants: Can we establish whether there
>> is general agreement on the principle that if an applicant desires to use a
>> string that has geographic significance (whether on a list or not) in a
>> manner that corresponds to the geographic significance, then they need a
>> letter of non-objection or consent.
>>
>> -- from Susan Payne to All Participants: I don't think there is any
>> agreement on the notion of letter of non-objection as proposed by Jorge.
>> But in any event, I question how this could be in any event be practical -
>> what about multiple different towns/cities of the same name? which gets
>> priority? what about some village/town/city in a county that you aren't
>> aware of - how do you even know about it, let alone get non-objection?
>> what about names that have multiple meanings - why does Bar (the place) get
>> some priority/veto over use of that term to identify a drinking
>> establishment?
>>
>> -- from Robin Gross to All Participants: Yes, we shouldn't be able to use
>> such terms in a way that is misleading or that causes consumer confusion.
>> But a blanket requirement of always requiring such a letter goes too far.
>> Thanks.
>>
>> -- from Robin Gross to All Participants: But I would also agree with
>> Susan that the letter isn't agreed to as a concept (ever was). It was just
>> imposed on the community after the fact.
>>
>> -- from Robin Gross to All Participants: Jeff, to your good question
>> about how to determine confusion, I think it is similar to how the legal
>> concept of fair use is determined - by weighing a series of factors and
>> always circumstance dependent. So panelists could look at the specific
>> facts of the situation and weigh the competing legitimate interests. But a
>> bright line rule would fail to capture it adequately. Like fair use in
>> copyright.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 en icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lac-discuss-es mailing list
> lac-discuss-es en atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
>
> http://www.lacralo.org
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-es/attachments/20180511/ffab567e/attachment-0001.html>
Más información sobre la lista de distribución lac-discuss-es