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

Alexander Schubert alexander at schubert.berlin
Sun May 20 11:40:50 UTC 2018


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





 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2018 11:50 AM
To: Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!

 

God morning:

A tiered system would need a revision procedure and a repository of exceptions.
There are some quite small places of significance for tourism, religious, cultural or historical reasons.

In this context, I maintain my position against multiple Geo-TLDs with the same entity, and for incorporation within the jurisdiction of the Name in question. And my warning about areas of contested sovereignty.

CW

El 20 de mayo de 2018 a las 8:09 Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net> > escribió:

We also need to factor in the point that the size of cities in not static. There are periods, like now, when populations are on the move -- for many different reasons. A tiered system for dealing with cities of various sizes still makes sense to me. 

Marita

 

On 5/18/2018 6:27 AM, Liz Williams wrote:

Hello Alexander

 

Your assertion about “nobody is going to apply for .pienza anyways — too small” is precisely the kind of subjective judgment we must not make in this policy development process.  Any applicant that meets the criteria in the application process should be able to apply and be evaluated fairly and objectively.

 

And the second problem is with your argument about “sizeable” cities. It is flawed to suggest that we can somehow have a cut off on size for a geographic entity especially when geographic entities may not just be cities.  Should we limit the length of rivers; the height of mountains; the areas of agricultural production for cheese?  We are not only discussing top level domains that may reflect city entities and we need to think carefully about what we do about other geographic terms, if any.

 

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 17 May 2018, at 7:16 pm, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin> > wrote:

 

Marita,

 

This is part of the trade-off:

Only applications for strings identical to SIZEABLE cities have to produce Government support – in exchange the “non-geo use” clause is eliminated!

Obviously if somebody wanted to apply for .pienza to enable that 2,000 people community to identify themselves on the Internet: go for it. But why having extra “protections” for such a small geo-entity? Nobody is going to apply for .pienza anyways – too small. 

Thanks,

Alexander

 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marita Moll
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 8:28 AM
To: 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 have heard that in Italy a city is any grouping of people that has a cathedral and a bishop. (Maybe someone on the list can confirm this.) I just visited one (Pienza) that has only 2000 people and does have a mayor, so some form of government. So, if it is a city and does have a government but is well below the population cut off, how would the provisions below protect Pienza (or not)?

Marita

 

On 5/17/2018 1:14 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:

Susan,

 

Either I have not expressed myself precise enough – or I am misunderstood:

In the 2012 AGB it clearly states “city name”. I think the requirement to produce a letter of non-objection from the city’s government implies that only city’s that HAVE any form of Government are targeted by this rule. Rock doesn’t have any “Government” – it is such a small village (1,200 people) that it is governed by others. There is a reference to “city government” in Module 2, page 18 of 42, 2.2.1.4.2 in 2b – there in the reference 7 ( <https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/evaluation-procedures-04jun12-en.pdf> https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/evaluation-procedures-04jun12-en.pdf):
“City governments with concerns about strings that are duplicates, nicknames or close renderings of a city name should not rely

on the evaluation process as the primary means of protecting their interests in a string. Rather, a government may elect to file a

formal objection to an application that is opposed by the relevant community, or may submit its own application for the string.”

This language clearly implies that “city” in respect to the support requirement is defined as a place that has its own “Government”. 


I am very much in agreement with you that the 2012 AGB specification “city name” is a disaster. It’s not really defined and way too broad. By introducing a population-size cutoff we eliminate all the smallish places that nobody really would ever create a geo gTLD for anyways – so brands and generic term applications have free reign! These smaller places can still OBJECT to an application – example would be “Aspen”.

And this is precisely one of our tasks here: to unearth language and provisions of the 2012 AGB that maybe “worked” in 2012 – but likely create confusion in future rounds. 


Thanks,

Alexander

 

 

 

 

From: Susan Payne [ <mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com> mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:41 AM
To:  <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin> alexander at schubert.berlin;  <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!

 

Well Alexander, this is a perfect example of why if you are going to agree with the wide-ranging and imprecise assertions of others then it would be well to be clear exactly what you are agreeing with.  You actually do not agree with Christopher at all –or at least in large part.

 

What’s called a city seems to vary greatly from country to country.  I’ve been to UK fishing villages that are bigger than “cities” in some other countries.  The AGB just refers to a “city” but without defining what that is.  Not that there’s any basis at law of course for the AGB city consent requirements, just for the avoidance of doubt.

 

 

Susan Payne

Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd

28-30 Little Russell StreetWell 

London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom

 

E:  <mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com> susan.payne at valideus.com

D: +44 20 7421 8255

T: +44 20 7421 8299

M: +44 7971 661175

 

 

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 Alexander Schubert
Sent: 16 May 2018 22:33
To:  <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!

 

Susan,

 

Your comment is very valuable:

We HAVE to prevent that places like “rock” have veto rights over brand or generic term based gTLDs! The “Rock” (in Cornwall) you mentioned is a “fishing village” – and as such DOESN’T require any letter of non-objection per the 2012 AGB at all! But the point itself is well taken:

We need to qualify a threshold for protection – most likely by quantifying the population! If we have a 10,000 (or 50,000) inhabitant cut-off: the overlay between those sizeable cities and brands and or generic terms is MINIMAL! 

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 Susan Payne
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:23 AM
To: Greg Shatan < <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>;  <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
Cc:  <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org

 

Agreed Greg

Christopher, you appear to be suggesting that the term “rock” since it happens to be the name of at least one small town in Cornwall, England, and possibly elsewhere, could not be used as a TLD by  geologists, landscapers, musicians, etc etc.  On what possible legal, or indeed policy, basis?  So no, you may not take that as agreed.

 

 

Susan Payne

Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd

28-30 Little Russell Street

London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom

 

E:  <mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com> susan.payne at valideus.com

D: +44 20 7421 8255

T: +44 20 7421 8299

M: +44 7971 661175

 

 

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: 16 May 2018 21:46
To:  <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
Cc:  <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org

 

Christopher wrote:

 

3.  The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?)

There has been significant— repeated — objection to that proposition, so no, you may not take it that it is agreed in WT5.

 

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that.

 

Greg

 

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:39 PM  <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> lists at christopherwilkinson.euWilkinson < <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

Good afternoon:

With respect, this is the first time that I have perceived that in 2012, Geo-Names Review was different from the Geo-Names Panel. I shall try and get my head around that! 

Meanwhile, it would clearly be an advantage to have a review function available for ALL Geo-related applications, up front, BEFORE applicants and the mechanisms spend time and money on the approval procedures.

I have already posted several comments that would significantly reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications. Pour Memoire:

1.  The application should be from an entity within the jurisdiction of the geo-name in question, and the proposed TLD Registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction. There should not be any incorporations in third country tax havens.

2.  There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may be applied for by any one entity. 

3.  The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?)

Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and during implementation.

Regards

CW

PS:  Since all applications for Geo-Names should have received non-objection letters from the appropriate authorities, I might imagine that the scope for String Contention would be considerably reduced if not eliminated.

 

 

 





_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> 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 <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 <mailto: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/20180520/47d3a504/attachment-0001.html>


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