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

Tue May 22 22:40:34 UTC 2018

Hello everyone

Do take a look at this article by Maria Farrell recently published on Circle ID.  It addresses, from quite a different perspective, some of the points raised here.

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20180517_geotlds_small_but_perfectly_formed/

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 23 May 2018, at 1:34 am, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>> 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

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2018 11:50 AM
To: Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>; 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!

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):
“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]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:41 AM
To: alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>; 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!

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: susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto: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] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert
Sent: 16 May 2018 22:33
To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto: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] On Behalf Of Susan Payne
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:23 AM
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>; lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto: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: susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto: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] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: 16 May 2018 21:46
To: lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto: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 lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>Wilkinson <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto: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

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

_______________________________________________
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/20180522/6826cddf/attachment-0001.html>