[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!
Marita Moll
mmoll at ca.inter.net
Thu May 31 23:54:12 UTC 2018
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]
> *Sent:* Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 06:39
> *To:* Alexander Schubert <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 <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
> PMlists 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
> 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/20180531/396444a4/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list