[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
Sat Sep 8 13:00:09 UTC 2018
Hello Farzaneh. Thank you for deciphering the weird posting I sent out
on this. I had trouble deciphering it myself at first. Sorry about that.
But on the subject -- Dushanbe means Monday in Tajic as well which has
its origins in ancient Persia and may or may not be related to Farsi
(that I don't know). I'm sure you know this and, yes, there are 100
million people who speak Farsi. I wish I was one of them. It is an
ancient language which, perhaps, one day might find itself on the UNESCO
intangible cultural heritage site. And maybe ICANN would have set up a
way to recognize such world treasures in the gTLD system by that time. I
should live that long!!
I am NOT speaking for governments, and am not saying governments should
make the decision. I just feel that if citizens of capital cities and
cities of over 1M around the world who would probably, if we could poll
them, agree that large cities and capital cities, at a minimum, should
receive some special attention in this debate. And so I am with the
citizens, as citizens of a large cultural entity, they also should have
some rights in this discussion. I don't think that is dubious or
arbitrary -- or, if it was so, in the initial iteration of the decision
around capital cities I don't think we should be carrying that into this
discussion. I think that the idea that citizens of these entities also
have rights that we should recognize in this discussion is a valid
position to hold as a non-government person in a multistakeholder
discussion.
Cheers
Marita
On 9/7/2018 11:10 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
>> <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 <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
>
> --
> Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180908/adb1b4cd/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list