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

farzaneh badii farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
Sat Sep 8 03:10:45 UTC 2018 

the issues that might come across as very obvious to you will create
complications later on. We have given many many examples of this but I will
give you another: a capital city of 800,000 people that has a generic name:
Dushanbe. Dushanbe is the capital of Tajikistan. In Farsi dushanbe means
Monday. There are 110 million farsi speakers around the world.

Reserving names, setting them aside for later release, giving them
arbitrarily to entities, all are ex ante actions that are unjustified. It’s
protectionism. It will politicize the cyber space even further and harms
innovation, creativity and freedom of speech. But we have said these over
and over.

In the end, it is not really a  multistakeholder process when one group
that actually has an advisory role can obstruct what others agree on.

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 12:38 PM Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:

> Excuse me for askabout 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> 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
>>
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>>
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>>
>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>>
>> 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> *On
>> Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 5, 2018 5:58 PM
>> *To:* lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <
>> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
>> *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
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 Wilkinson <
>> 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> 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> 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 list
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 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

-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180907/35ec588a/attachment-0001.html>

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