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

Fri Jun 8 00:34:49 UTC 2018

THAT is the question....

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:23 PM, Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:

> 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 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 listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.orghttps://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/20180607/1c7e5bf9/attachment-0001.html>