[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