[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report
Marita Moll
mmoll at ca.inter.net
Wed Sep 5 12:47:33 UTC 2018
Sorry I had to miss the call. I do want to add my support to Alexander's
suggestion on establishing a category for cities of (x) size
Anybody willing to support my suggestion:
·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.
·This provision could be included in the “non-capital cities” silo.
Marita
On 9/5/2018 4:00 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
>
> As we both are quite vocal on this topic I try to be short:
>
> ·First Come First Serve is the declared goal. Some want it already
> smack after the next round. Once that happens: there won’t be
> contention resolve mechanisms anymore – by definition!
>
> ·The requirement to authenticate registrants: Yes! I agree with you –
> it’s a good thing! But in the realm of community priority applications
> you are forced to define the community very narrow – and then ONLY
> that narrowly defined group of entities is eligible to register
> domains! Imagine a brand selling stuff in the city – but has no
> presence there! They would not be eligible to register their
> brand.city domain. Unless you define the community quite broad – and
> my personal experience teaches me: DON’T! It might cost you your CPE.
>
> ·The bad actor: They might not even see themselves as such. In the
> 2012 round ALL the generic namespace was up for grabs, PLUS: most
> players did not believe that city gTLDs would be profitable. This has
> changed: The best generic terms are now taken. Citiy gTLDs have proved
> to be profitable. Here the mechanics: VC money will be raised; and
> once cash is raised - strings will be chosen. Generic keywords are
> pretty much exhausted. City names make economic sense on several
> levels. If your operation model would be identical to that of
> “Donuts”: you won’t actively “market” your strings to anybody. You
> just push them out into the registrar channel. Why on earth would you
> care for “geo-use”? You do not! You just apply for the string, with NO
> INTENT AT ALL. This saves you the acquisition of the support letter –
> hence my formulation: “Non-geo use loophole”.
>
> Moving on ……
>
> Anybody willing to support my suggestion:
>
> ·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.
>
> ·This provision could be included in the “non-capital cities” silo.
>
> The current language in the 2012 AGB reads:
>
> */An application for a city name will be subject to the/*
>
> */geographic names requirements (i.e., will require/*
>
> */documentation of support or non-objection from/*
>
> */the relevant governments or public authorities) if:/*
>
> *//*
>
> */(a) It is clear from applicant statements within the/*
>
> */application that the _applicant will use the TLD_/*
>
> */_primarily for purposes_/**/associated with the city/*
>
> */name/*
>
> ///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! .......... /
>
> ·/.........////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
> .............../
>
>
> /
> /
>
> *//*
>
> “X” needs obviously to be defined. Some would like to see it at 50k
> people – others at over a Million. The lower the number – the less
> likely we find consensus. But the definition of the threshold is
> independent of the measure in itself. Let’s not get hung up on the
> exact number – let’s see whether the general CONCEPT finds agreement:
> that a sizeable city should be as well protected as a national
> subdivision or capital city! Setting “X” to 1 Million would be a
> balanced approach to at least protect those city communities that are
> likely to potentially fall victim to applicants that simply have no
> “intents” – and therefore don’t voice such intent in their application
> – hence avoid the looping-in of the city Government!
> The formulation “clear from applicant statements within the
> application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes
> associated with the city name….” really is very weak and simply
> INVITES to NOT have such “statements” in the application!
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
> *From:*Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 05, 2018 5:43 AM
> *To:* alexander at schubert.berlin
> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Subject:* 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,
>
> Greg
>
> 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,
>
> Alexander.berlin
>
>
>
> *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,
>
> Emily
>
> *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
>
> Hi,
>
> 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 5^th – but obviously no “consensus”
> has been reached (not even close).
>
> 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
> *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
>
> *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>
> 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/20180905/0425e697/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list