[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Fri Sep 7 21:00:11 UTC 2018
Rosalia ,jorge ,christopher and Alexander +1
Kavouss
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 10:41 PM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear All
> I do not support Greg
> Kavouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 7 Sep 2018, at 22:40, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I also support Alexander
> Kavouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 5 Sep 2018, at 14:47, Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> 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
> <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>
> <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> 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]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM
> *To:* alexander at schubert.berlin; 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> on
> behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
> *Reply-To: *"alexander at schubert.berlin" <alexander at schubert.berlin>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50
> *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org" <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 5th – 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]
> *On Behalf Of *Emily Barabas
> *Sent:* Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM
> *To:* 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.
>
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Emily
>
>
>
> *Emily Barabas *| Policy Manager
>
> *ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>
> Email: emily.barabas at icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.orghttps://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/20180907/00e51adc/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list