[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report

Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH ohlmer at dotzon.com
Wed Sep 5 08:59:29 UTC 2018

Hi All,

let me add some experiences about the concept of community geo applicants from the geoTLD group:

Of all geoTLD applications, 15 of them had a community designation.

The other geoTLDs were standard applications.

All geoTLDs came with different “flavours” of registration policies.
While the community designation is one viable option, it is certainly neither wanted nor reasonable in all cases and depends on several local conditions – not all geoTLDs are the same.

If there is interest in further facts about community/non-comunity geoTLDs , I am happy to provide them .

Best regards

DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow
Akazienstrasse 28
10823 Berlin
Deutschland - Germany
Tel: +49 30 49802722
Fax: +49 30 49802727
Mobile: +49 173 2019240
ohlmer at dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer at dotzon.consulting>

Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598
Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin

Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. September 2018 04:43
An: alexander at schubert.berlin
Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report

I think the Community Priority Evaluation survived the attempt at "hole poking" pretty much unscathed:

  *   Unless you've been to the future, nobody has any idea if or when the gTLD application process will move away from rounds.  If it does, batching or some other process could still create contention sets.  "First come, first served" may never come.
  *   It seems entirely appropriate for city-based gTLDs to authenticate registrants, whether or not they are community-based applications.  "Open season" on registrations blows a hole in the concept of city-based gTLDs -- unless the only idea is to deliver Internet real estate to one preferred applicant, who can then exploit the gTLD however they please.
  *   If there are problems with the way Community Priority processes worked, it's our job to fix them -- for geo's and (elsewhere in the WG) non-geo's as well. I understand that avoiding it would be preferable to some, and that it's easier to avoid if its warts are left on, but I can't believe any disinterested participant would support that approach.
Finally, the mythical "bad actor" that is the impetus for this suggestion seems to have no basis in reality.  Are there any examples of this occurring in the prior round?  Of course, just about every type of "bad actor" is remotely possible, but how likely is it?

Moving on...

While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander:

  *   extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories
  *   replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases.  While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime).
  *   Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision.
  *   Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration
  *   A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration).  Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way.  Hence, the need for a bright-line rule.
  *   A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name.  This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants.  (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights.  More doors, and less walls!)
There may be others, but that's a start.

Best regards,


On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Hi Emily,

TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision.  If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism).

Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea:

•         Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived!

•         It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later

•         In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it.
Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind.

So my suggestion (yes, again!):

•         Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)

•         X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.

I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”?

Thanks for hearing my out,


From: Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org>]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM
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] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC

Hi Alexander,

Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-08-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Work+Track+5> and transcript here<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript-rpm-review-22aug18-en.pdf>.

An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3.

Kind regards,

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>>
Reply-To: "alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>" <alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>>
Date: Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC


Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close).



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 Emily Barabas
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC

Dear Work Track 5 members,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins)

2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins)

3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins)

4. AOB (5 mins)

If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>.

Kind regards,

Emily Barabas | Policy Manager
ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas at icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180905/3a3f7c2c/attachment-0001.html>

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