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

[Greg Shatan]

No, it’s not a neutral measure. There is no neutral hierarchy of legitimate
uses.

What if it’s a global brand of beer? What if it’s considered the best beer
of all time? What if the town is better known than the city? What if the
city is a crime-ridden hole? What if it’s luxury goods instead of beer?

But at least here we are talking about resolving contention sets among
applicants. When we talk about applicants vs. non-applicants, a hierarchy
of favoring use vs. non-use seems fairly neutral.

Best regards,

Greg

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 8:48 PM Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:

> Well, maybe we can assume that it would always go to the city of 500,000
> because of the number of people who would be directly negatively affected
> if the name went to beer brand. Could that be considered a neutral measure?
>
> Marita Moll
>
> On 6/7/2018 8:34 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180608/0289cd9e/attachment-0001.html>