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

Marita Moll mmoll at ca.inter.net
Fri Jun 8 00:23:14 UTC 2018


Just on the final thought below: I wonder what kinds of neutral measures 
there could be to measure applications. If a city of 500,000 comes along 
with the same name as a hamlet of 500 and a brand of beer -- all seeking 
to acquire the same string -- under what conditions would the name NOT 
go to the large city.

Marita Moll

On 6/2/2018 3:08 AM, Liz Williams 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 <mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au> 
> www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au>
>
> Important Notice
> This email may contain information which is confidential and/or 
> subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the 
> named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must 
> not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received 
> this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete 
> this message immediately.
>
>> On 2 Jun 2018, at 12:15 pm, Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com 
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://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.*
>>
>>     oAnd 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.*
>>
>>     oYou 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
>>     <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 <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>
>>
>>
>>     *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>>     <mailto: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
>>     <mailto: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
>>             <http://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 <http://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
>>             <mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>]
>>             *Sent:* Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 06:39
>>             *To:* Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
>>             <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>
>>             *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>>             <mailto: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
>>             <mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au
>>             <http://www.auda.org.au/>
>>
>>             Important Notice
>>             This email may contain information which is confidential
>>             and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for
>>             the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the
>>             intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or
>>             copy any part of this email. If you have received this
>>             email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete
>>             this message immediately.
>>
>>                 On 20 May 2018, at 9:40 pm, Alexander Schubert
>>                 <alexander at schubert.berlin
>>                 <mailto: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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto: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/20180607/7d5dec5d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list