[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!

[Maureen Hilyard]

A very helpful summary. Thank you Katrin.

Maureen

On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:19 pm Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer at dotzon.com>
wrote:

> Dear All,
>
>
>
> reading through all comments, I thought it might be a good exercise to try
> to focus on the things which we want to improve. So let me summarize the
> facts and propose some options how to enhance the AGB 2012:
>
>
>
> Facts
>
> + there were no issues with TLD applications which contacted the relevant
> government before they filed the application (.nyc, .tokyo, .rio, .paris,
> .hamburg, …)
>
> + there were issues with TLD applications, where applicants did not
> contact the relevant government before filing the application (.tata,
> .spa,….)
>
> + those issues led to serious delays in the application process for those
> applicants, and caused other mitigation procedures at ICANN org which might
> have been avoidable
>
>
>
> What is the goal?
>
> + keep/enhance transparency and predictability for applicants in the TLD
> application process
>
> + make the application process for the ICANN community and all affected
> stakeholders as predictable, clear and straight-forward as possible
>
> + define balanced rules which consider the interests of all stakeholders
>
>
>
> So how to reach those goals?
>
> + Mandatory check by each applicant, whether applied-for TLD is a geoName
> that equates a certain category (Capital city, …)
>
> + For applications which equate a geoName, certain mechanisms apply
>
>
>
> Possible ways
>
> + require proof with the application, that applicants for a TLD made a
> check whether their TLD equates a geoName of a certain category (Capital
> city, …)
>
> + require proof with the application, that applicants for a TLD which
> equates a geoName reached out to the relevant government
>
> + require non-objection or support letter for a certain category of
> geoNames (Capital city, …)
>
>
>
> Looking forward what others say.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Katrin
>
>
>
>
>
> DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow
> Akazienstrasse 28
> 10823 Berlin
> Deutschland - Germany
> Tel: +49 30 49802722
> Fax: +49 30 49802727
> Mobile: +49 173 2019240
> ohlmer at dotzon.consulting
> www.dotzon.consulting
>
> DOTZON GmbH
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598
> Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin
>
>
>
> *Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] *Im
> Auftrag von *Ann-Cathrin Marcussen
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 6. Juni 2018 10:33
> *An:* Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for
> requirement of letters of non-objection!
>
>
>
> Jorge, I support your view and comments below.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards / Med vennlig hilsen
>
> Ann-Cathrin Marcussen
> Head of Legal
>
>
> UNINETT Norid AS
> 7465 Trondheim
>
> Oslokontor
> St Olavs Plass 2
> 0165 Oslo
>
> Mobil +47 920 14 282
> acm at uninett.no
>
>
>
> 6. jun. 2018 kl. 10:29 skrev Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch:
>
>
>
> The advisory board could of course be subject to confidentiality rules if
> the confidentiality of the string is an issue for the applicant.
> Professional and early advice on whether a string has a geographic meaning
> and which the relevant public authorities are is IMO something quite
> valuable for a prospective applicant. Leaving that to the evaluation phase
> (when substantial investments have been made and the danger of an objection
> from a non-contacted public authority is high) is really something I would
> call “ill-advised”…
>
> Best
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 6. Juni 2018 08:37
> *An:* liz.williams at auda.org.au; lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for
> requirement of letters of non-objection!
>
>
>
> Clear guidance would be for such applicants to seek early contact with
> relevant public authorities and their non-objection. The potential advisory
> panel on geonames could help them in such endeavours, as previously
> mentioned.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Liz Williams
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 5. Juni 2018 23:30
> *An:* lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <
> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for
> requirement of letters of non-objection!
>
>
>
> Thanks Christopher
>
>
>
> I am trying to keep the conversation open and ideas flowing for as long as
> well possibly can to think about instances of where our (well-intentioned)
> policy recommendations may have unintended implementation consequences.  We
> have seen that in the case of Patagonia and we could easily see it again if
> we continued the theme of outdoor brands like Kathmandu and North Face.
>
>
>
> We may decide that we have resolved this particular brand/geographic term
> conundrum; we may decide that risks of dual/competing applications are
> low.  I think in both instances it is high risk for applicants and even
> higher risk for evaluators unless we have clear guidance.  If that takes
> longer to work through at this stage I think it’s time well spent.
>
>
>
> Liz
>
>
> ….
> Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs
> .au Domain Administration Ltd
> M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757
> E: liz.williams at auda.org.au www.auda.org.au
>
> Important Notice
> This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject
> to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee
> only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or
> copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake,
> please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
>
>
>
> On 6 Jun 2018, at 5:44 am, lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <
> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Liz:  I expect that most applications for geo-names will be made by
> the country/region/city/community concerned who already hold prior
> customary use rights (or even legal rights) to the geo-name in question. If
> they do not apply now, their future interests must be protected. ICANN
> should respect that as a matter of policy.
>
> There is  - fortunately - already plenty of space on the Internet for
> freedom of speech.
>
> But the idea that ICANN would be complicit in approving contested
> geo-names as TLDs, only in the name of freedom of speech - which BTW could
> cut both ways - is most unlikely to fly anywhere soon.
>
> In any case, the priority for freedom of speech should accrue to the users
> of the geo-name in question, not to the applicant.
>
> A little realism, please …
>
> Christopher
>
> El 5 de junio de 2018 a las 20:26 Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net>
> escribió:
>
> Here is an example I just ran into. The city of Meissen in Germany -- pop.
> approx. 30,000 -- well known for it's porcelain industry which has been
> part of this city since the 1700s.
>
> town url is indirect (thank goodness for wikipedia which takes you there)
> = http://www.stadt-meissen.de/
>
> The url meissen.de leads you to meissen.com. That's the pottery factory.
>
> Even the Meissen summer school of Internet governance (euroSSIG) has the
> pottery site posted instead of the town site -- accidently, I'm sure. This
> sort of thing is confusing to endusers and we should seek to avoid it or at
> least clearly outline it.
>
> I assume that the pottery factory got the top level because no letter of
> support was requested or required.  Perhaps this is a common tradeoff in
> Germany as I think I have seen it before. Does it make sense to reserve
> double barrelled tags like meissen-city for this purpose? Maybe it does.
>
> If such examples could be deconstructed, perhaps it would lead us to some
> defined strategies on resolving such conflicts.
>
> Marita
>
>
>
> On 6/4/2018 5:09 PM, Liz Williams wrote:
>
> Hello Kavouss
>
>
>
> I am sorry I wasn’t clear.  What I meant was that it is entirely possible
> for an application to be submitted that relates to a geographic location
> that is contested between one or more parties and requiring government
> support would be an unreasonable burden on a legitimate applicant.  I can
> think of many locations that could be interested in applying for a new TLD
> but am reluctant to choose examples because that may be inflammatory.
>
>
>
> The central point is that “requiring” government support for an
> application for a new TLD which is a geographic identifier, as opposed to
> having that support as only one element of evaluation criteria could be
> very unfair for applicants.  The freedom of speech/international rights
> experts will be much better placed to make these arguments based on
> international norms (for example, from the United Nations).
>
>
>
> I am urging us to think of different policy principles that could be
> applied here…we are very close to that if we stick with “objective,
> transparent, known in advance” and so on.  What we most certainly don’t
> want to do is create implementation systems that could put ICANN evaluators
> in the middle of picking winners in deeply political discussions which have
> nothing to do with the management of the domain name system.
>
>
>
> Liz
>
> ….
> Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs
> .au Domain Administration Ltd
> M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757
> E: liz.williams at auda.org.au www.auda.org.au
>
> Important Notice
> This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject
> to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee
> only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or
> copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake,
> please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
>
>
>
> On 4 Jun 2018, at 9:09 pm, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Liz
>
> I do not really understand the objectives of your text below
>
> C) legitimate dissent where a geographic location is contested (in all
> forms of geographic and cultural contest) but where it is entirely feasible
> for a legitimate application to be submitted for which freedom of
> expression is paramount.  Mandating support or “non-objection” is a
> guarantee of failure where the applicant may have different views to the
> government of the day.
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Liz Williams <liz.williams at auda.org.au>
> wrote:
>
> The challenge with these kind of cut off numbers/percentages/qualifiers is
> that they don’t recognise the realities of
>
>
>
> A)  numerous examples of where this just doesn’t work when generic words
> clash with trademarks which clash with geographic terms where no one right
> is more valid than any other.
>
> B) competing applications (from the Perths or Londons or Rocks) of the
> world which could be some of the largest cities in the world to the tiniest
> island towns that want to connect their unique identity to the global
> internet
>
> C) legitimate dissent where a geographic location is contested (in all
> forms of geographic and cultural contest) but where it is entirely feasible
> for a legitimate application to be submitted for which freedom of
> expression is paramount.  Mandating support or “non-objection” is a
> guarantee of failure where the applicant may have different views to the
> government of the day.
>
>
>
> We must think clearly about neutral measures for evaluators to measure
> applications…not coming up with select lists which we will, guaranteed, get
> wrong.
>
> Liz
>
> ….
> Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs
> .au Domain Administration Ltd
> M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757
> E: liz.williams at auda.org.au www.auda.org.au
>
> Important Notice
> This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject
> to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee
> only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or
> copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake,
> please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
>
>
>
> On 2 Jun 2018, at 12:15 pm, Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Alexander,
>
> I very much like the idea of a percentage of citizens of a nation as
> consideration for qualifying select list of cities in order to not exclude
> smaller cities from protective measures enjoyed by capital cities and ISO
> 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions. Percentages would work much better than
> absolute values.
>
>
> Thank
>
> you for suggesting this.
>
>
>
> Justine
> -----
>
>
>
> On 1 June 2018 at 23:28, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
> wrote:
>
> Greg,
>
>
>
> So in other words folks who are trying to preserve identity rights for
> city inhabitants are “GEO Supremacists” in your eyes? I assume you just
> want to showcase your extreme displeasure with the suggested protective
> measures. Just search “USA supremacy” in google.com; and you know why it
> hurts to be called a “supremacist”. Maybe you weren’t aware how insulting
> the term is.
>
>
> But trying to stay on the topic matter:
>
> ·        *I think we have reached general agreement that the public
> representatives for inhabitants of certain geo-entities deserve the
> unilateral right to vet an identical gTLD application.*
>
> o   And in the languages that matters! See Moscow: Even when only a
> smaller percentage of Muscovites speaks English – the gTLD is bilingual;
> one gTLD in English and an IDN version in Russian. Just the local language
> isn’t enough in a globalized world. I am a good example in this case:  For
> my Russian traveling I use schubert.moscow – and I wouldn’t want an IDN
> version. I hope it’s not too “supremacist” when a metropole desires their
> well-known global brand in the English language as well (being a capital or
> not – Moscow was covered as it is capital).
>
> ·        *Examples of the above mentioned agreed on protective measures
> are capital cities or ISO 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions.*
>
> ·        *My suggestion is that we extend the same rights to cities once
> these meet a certain threshold.*
>
> o   You suggest that this should be a “select list”. So we have to define
> the threshold that defines the “list”. This could be an absolute number of
> inhabitants – or a percentage of citizens – or the lower of both values.
> Example: the city needs to have at minimum 250,000 inhabitants – or at
> least 2.5% of the nation’s population. The exact measures need to be
> explored. This way in countries with less than 10 Million people (and that
> is WELL more than half of all countries in the world) slightly smaller
> cities are protected as well. Latvia has 2 Million people – 2.5% equals
> 50,000! That protects 4 cities aside of the capital.
>
> ·        *If a city doesn’t make the “select list” the 2012 AGB rules
> apply:  government support only required if geo-use intent.*
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org]
>  *On Behalf Of* Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Freitag, 1. Juni 2018 06:44
> *To:* Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net>
>
>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for
> requirement of letters of non-objection!
>
>
>
>
>
> I’m in favor of TLDs being applied for and used as city TLDs by those
> cities or on their behalf.
>
>
>
> I’m open to the idea that a very small and  select list of cities would
> have veto/blocking/consent/non-objection privileges (practically, they’re
> all pretty much the same) over any use of a string identical to their name
> (in the language of  that city), even for non-geo uses.
>
>
>
> I’m open to the idea of a larger group of cities that would have those
> privileges, but only in the context of use in connection with that city.
>
>
>
> I’m not in favor of a general rule based on the geosupremacist idea that a
> geo use is superior to all other uses.  I’m really not in favor of a
> general rule that non-use/non-application for geo purposes should get in
> the way of an application for another use of that same string.
>
>
>
> Strings have multiple meanings and uses.  There is no general rule of a
> hierarchy of rights among legitimate uses of that string. There is
> certainly no hierarchy that puts geo uses at the  top of the list every
> time.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 7:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> I know I am a bit late in tuning into these thoughts by Alexander. But
> it's never too late to say "well said."
>
> I am reminded that, in it's earliest days, the Internet itself was
> considered a public resource. Even the slightest bit of advertising was
> shunned! We have come a long way from there. But we still have a chance to
> retain some of that original spirit. The city domain name space could be
> seen and managed as a resource for public benefit as Alexander suggests.
>
> And that would have to be by design."It doesn't happen by accident."
>
> Marita Moll
>
>
>
> On 5/22/2018 11:34 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
>
> Dear Liz,
>
>
>
> I am a domain broker and “domainer” since 21 years and have consequently
> analyzed the market from “inside” – ESPECIALLY when it comes to newly
> minted gTLDs. I have participated in all new gTLD introductions in the
> past, from .info, over .us (liberation in  2001), .eu and so on. And there
> is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between a historical grown name space like
> “.com” or a ccTLD and new name spaces:
>
> If 10% of names in .com or .de are speculative registrations - .com will
> survive just fine. No problem. But:
> A new gTLD is like a new “land” – best to be compared with for example
> Dubai. Imagine the rulers of Dubai had sold building lots for “cost value”;
> say for US $2,000 per lot. They would probably have sold high volumes – but
> unlikely that ANYTHING would have really being developed there. The “dirt”
> would have remained what it is: “dirt”. Speculators would have speculated.
> But wisely the Dubai rulers demanded from all land buyers to DEVELOP their
> land – and build something; “something” that by now is the sparkling
> community we all know: DUBAI!
>
> In Chicago there were several blocks of sub premium land. Some people
> bought houses cheaply – and did NOTHING. But others developed the land
> around – and made the area “valuable”. Guess how the people who bought
> cheap and then waited until the area became valuable were called? No. Not
> “clever investors”. They were labeled “free-riders”. They bought cheap and
> did nothing – waited for the land to “mature” – then sold for prices that
> were high due to the work of others. That’s what “domain investors” do:
> they buy the premium land – let it sit for 5 to 10 years – THEN SELL for
> 1,000 times the “investment”. “Clever”? Nope: Mismanagement, free-Riding
> and damages the name-space: nothing is being developed – no “Sparkling
> Dubai” – all remains dirt. Legal – but doesn’t really advance the
> experience of the Internet user.
>
> It’s all a question of public benefit philosophy – or the absence of any.
>
> Regarding “local business”:
> Yes, of course one could argue that a domain tires.denver owned by
> speculator and operating a tires.com Affiliate website isn’t too bad.
> After all people in Denver can buy tires on the website, and the domain
> owner “invested funds”, the registry got some money in the premium auction
> (e.g. US $2k – even if the domain is worth US $50k), and: “all OK, no?”.
> Free market, and let the registry do what they want.
> My view on this:  A city gTLD is a VALUABLE RESCOURCE, that should aid the
> city community. It should be MANAGED – and ideally in a way that impacting
> domains like business verticals are supporting LOCAL business. The U.S. is
> CHOKING on a gigantic import-export deficit: stuff is being bought ABROAD
> instead nationally. The same is true for local communities: The Internet
> serves as a Trojan horse to shift local business outside the city.  Tires
> being bought at a tires.com Affiliate site displayed at tires.denver
> shift revenue OUTSIDE Denver. Apartments leased via an Affiliate site at
> apartments.denver destroy local real estate businesses. This list goes on
> and on and on. The huge advantage of a locally MANAGED city gTLD is to
> ADVANCE LOCAL BUSINESS! Hence “.denver”! If you wanted to buy tires
> SOMEWHERE – then do it. But the very idea of a .city gTLD is that it
> promotes LOCAL BUSINESSES! And that doesn’t happen by “accident” – it has
> to be promoted and MANAGED. And the ones who do that best are the local
> business constituencies – business associations, chambers, etc.!
>
>
>
> Imagine somebody bought a wood (large property full of trees) for cheap
> money – and would harvest ALL trees, and sell them at once: Yes, they would
> make a profit. Is it good for the land? Nope – the land will erode. Hence
> laws and rules regulate wood harvesting. It’s the same with city gTLDs.
> Selling all the premium domains in SEDO auctions to “investors” makes money
> – and drives registration volume: but it deprives the namespace of creating
> “beacon” domains that serve as brand ambassadors for the city gTLD.
>
> Took me a few years to develop all these thoughts. I am thinking about
> community name spaces since 2004. I love earning money – but I love even
> more when I serve people while doing so. Not all life is about making cash
> fast.
>
> So when a city Government is being presented with a city constituencies
> funded, owned, managed and marketed “non-profit” effort to advance the city
> – and on the other hand with an operator that merely “makes the namespace
> available”: let the cities representatives decide. I agree with you: ICANN
> should NOT “tell applicants where to base their business” or how to operate
> it. It’s fine when there are offshore based portfolio applicants with large
> amounts of VC money running around and trying to convince cities to operate
> a valuable and important city infrastructure. But allow the city to decide
> whom they pick – don’t let VC money “brute force” ownership of city
> namespaces.
>
> Btw: Sadly the “managing” part wasn’t well developed in the first batch of
> city gTLDs. I think this will dramatically change in the next round.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Liz Williams [mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au
> <liz.williams at auda.org.au>]
> *Sent:* Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 06:39
> *To:* Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
> <alexander at schubert.berlin>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for
> requirement of letters of non-objection!
>
>
>
> Hello Alexander
>
>
>
> I wanted to explore a little further your assertion that an applicant for
> a geo-TLD should be locally based.  Our freedom of expression/civil
> liberties colleagues will have a better handle on those imperatives but I
> wonder why one would expect an applicant to be located in the community
> when, for example, a geographic domain name label may be a means of
> expressing dissent or difference from the current government?  It is not a
> pre-requisite for ICANN to be telling applicants who meet the evaluation
> criteria that they should be “local”.   We also know that the Internet
> enables us to be wherever we want to be to do business…that is one of the
> most amazing characteristics of the Internet.
>
>
>
> It is also not desirable for ICANN to tell applicants where they should
> locate their businesses.  Organisations legitimately and perfectly legally
> choose the registered location for  their business based on, for example,
> tax treatment, ease of doing business, rule of law, incentives for
> entrepreneurs, bandwidth and timezone.  Those are all good things we
> wouldn’t want to interfere with.
>
>
>
> I doubt that it is supportable to have a prohibition on entities applying
> for several geographic labels.  What if it were a good thing that an expert
> registry operator was able to provide services to communities in unique and
> attractive ways?  I would have thought that is a nice niche business that
> could benefit communities in good ways?
>
>
>
> And finally, I don’t understand the problem with domain investors.  Those
> domain name owners are legitimate purchasers of domain names at the second
> level.  Many registry operators are propped up by those investors and the
> secondary domain name market is active and mature which is another
> indicator of competition and consumer choice.  I think we can all agree
> that mis-using a domain name, whoever owns it, isn’t a desirable market
> outcome but there are measures in place to deal with that.
>
>
>
> Looking forward to the views of others.
>
>
>
> Liz
>
> ….
> Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs
> .au Domain Administration Ltd
> M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757
> E: liz.williams at auda.org.au www.auda.org.au
>
> Important Notice
> This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject
> to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee
> only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or
> copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake,
> please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
>
>
>
> On 20 May 2018, at 9:40 pm, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Christopher,
>
> I completely understand (and support) your notion, that an applicant for a
> geo-gTLD should be locally rooted; ideally geo-community funded, managed
> and marketed. And I am completely in agreement with you that we should
> create policy that prevents that a few big players are blanketing the
> geo-gTLD space with hundreds of applications each a copy & paste job of the
> other, with absolutely zero knowledge of the specific city community and no
> intent to further THEIR specific agenda – instead trying to make money FAST.
>
> And obviously letters of non-objection will help a lot – because by 2020
> the mayors of a major cities WILL know a bit about the pitfalls of the
> management for city gTLDs (consultants will bring them up to speed and help
> them to navigate the jungle of examining the applicants funding, marketing,
> community-engagement and rooting, management, etc).
>
> You suggest a measure to reduce mass land-grab: “Prohibition to apply for
> several geo-gTLDs for the same entity”. I was a “domainer” (shame on me)
> since 1997,  and then started to create community based gTLDs in 2004
> (.berlin was a community owned, funded, managed and designated gTLD
> application, as was the .gay applicant I founded). I personally know quite
> a bunch of “domainers turned portfolio applicants”. And I know their
> abilities, their endurance. They will simply have a legal entity in each
> city – intelligently managed through notaries acting on their behalf.  I am
> happy to help looking into policy that is designed to stop geo-name land
> grab; but the measure proposed by you is probably easily to be gamed.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180605/bbdcf3ca/attachment-0001.html>