[lac-discuss-es] [Gnso-newg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 09 May 2018

Carlos Raul Gutierrez carlosraul en gutierrez.se
Vie Mayo 11 13:51:26 UTC 2018


Excelente resumen Adrian!

Ojalá tengamos más ideas de nuestra región. Es una gran oportunidad.

Muchas gracias

On May 9, 2018 11:36:21 AM CST, Adrian Carballo <ainfodata en gmail.com> wrote:
>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
>>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-es/attachments/20180511/45e43976/attachment-0001.html>


Más información sobre la lista de distribución lac-discuss-es