[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
Fri Sep 7 16:38:08 UTC 2018
Excuse me for asking about something that is probably obvious for most
of you, but do you setting aside capital cities here?
Marita
On 9/7/2018 12:25 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
> I agree.
>
> I think the joke which was taken seriously by ICANN was to give
> privileges to some entities over generic names, under dubious,
> arbitrary measures.
>
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 12:14 PM Paul Rosenzweig
> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
>
> I join Greg and Robin in thinking that these ideas are not
> “jokes.” They may or may not be suitable for adoption in the long
> run, but they are certainly worthy of extended consideration.
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
>
> My PGP Key:
> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
>
> *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
> *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 5, 2018 5:58 PM
> *To:* lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
> <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson
> <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> <mailto: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
>
> Christopher,
>
> Not joking at all. These are all valid and rational proposals,
> many of which have come up before in our discussions.
>
> Perhaps you mistakenly thought that this group was charged only
> with giving more preferences and privileges to “geos.” Not the
> case at all. The dial can move in both directions. More to the
> point, consensus comes from compromise — give to get, and all
> that. While these proposals are valid in their own right, they
> will also be useful in examining possible compromises.
>
> In any case, if I’m joking, we’re all joking....
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg
>
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:33 PM lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
> <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson
> <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
> <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:
>
> Greg: You are joking, of course.
>
> CW
>
> On Sep 4, 2018, at 7:42 PM, Greg Shatan
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> […]
>
> 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
> <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/20180907/8ef70bdb/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list