[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!
Marita Moll
mmoll at ca.inter.net
Sat Jun 9 00:42:35 UTC 2018
Hello Greg. I don't get this reasoning at all.
Best beer of all time would be subjective. Best Rolex watch of all time
-- also subjective. I don't see how those fit into this equation
A small town better know than a city of 500,000 -- better know globally,
that is. I'd like to hear an example
A crime-ridden city -- I don't think we are in the position of making a
moral judgement of this kind.
At least the size of a city is a quantitative measure -- once we decide
which measure to take (metropolitan, urban, etc.). There's nothing
subjective about it, nor is it based on any moral judgement. And we
would know exactly how many people would be directly affected.
Marita Moll
On 6/8/2018 8:14 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>>> <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]
>>>> *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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180608/050c9212/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list