[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
Sun Sep 9 14:47:56 UTC 2018
I am not going to respond to the message below and subject people of this
group to bickering, most know that the accusations are baseless anyway.
Farzaneh
On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 6:49 AM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Dear All, I am sorry for some typo that inadvertently occurred when I
> replied through my Iphone. Please kindly ignor it and read it void
>
> Here is the corrected version
>
> “
>
> The argument submitted relating to use of Duchanbe is totally invalid,
> contradictory as it is amalgamation of various irrelevant passages
> ,terms which we have heard having no relation with the issue under
> discussion
>
> The submitter of the argument mixed up many things and reiterate her
> hostility against GAC which is not a new sentiments as she demonstrated
> such animosity many times in the past .In fact this issue has nothing to do
> with GAC, It relates to the citizen of a country or countries which wish to
> preserve their legitimate rights, their traditions, customs, cultural
> heritage, social believe and historical annotation as well as their
> identity. It is a big mistake that those citizens give up or abandon such
> traditions, customs, cultural heritage , social believe and historical
> annotation as well as their identity for the sake of vague term “
> innovation” created by commercial people defended by someone from
> noncommercial stakeholder group.
>
> I do not know what is being protected. Perhaps merely “Commercial Interest
> “
>
> Reference was made to innovation?
>
> What innovation?
>
> Is it just commercial interests that pushed these citizens to be deprived
> from their fundamental rights
>
> What role the terms freedom of speech plays here that the citizen of a
> country should abandon their legitimate rights associated with their
> traditions, customs, cultural heritage , social believe and historical
> annotation as well as their identity if they customs, cultural heritage,
> their past historical heritage, identity for the sake of vague term “
> innovation” created by commercial people defended by someone from
> noncommercial stakeholder group.
>
> The words becomes strange when someone so aggressively and so
> mercilesslly attacks citizens of countries defending commercial interest.
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 10:31 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The argument submitted is totally invalid contradictory and amalgamation
>> of vêtions passage from 200 of thousands of terms , phrases and passages
>> which are irrelevant to the issue.
>> The submitters mixed up many things and reiterate her hostility against
>> GAC which is not a new sentiments
>> I do not know who she protects
>> She talks about invoices innovation?
>> What innovation ?
>> Is it just commercial interests that deprive the 120 million Persian
>> language speaking when they talk about Duchambeh ?
>> What role the terms freedom of speech pays here that the citizen of a
>> country should abondons their legitimate tights if they customs, culture ,
>> historical heritage, identity for the sake of vague term “ innovation”
>> created by commercial people defended by someone from non commercial
>> stakeholder group.
>> The words becomes strange when ad she referred to herself as “ finger of
>> god” so aggressively and merciless attacks citizens of countries defending
>> commercial interest.
>> Regards
>> Kavouss
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 8 Sep 2018, at 07:25, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'll be short in response....
>>
>> - First come, first served may be a "declared goal" for some
>> participants. For others, it is not. It is still a contentious issue with
>> a lack of consensus. So it is not "the declared goal."
>> - If the community authentication process is a bad fit for geo-gTLDs,
>> then let's adjust it, not use it as an excuse to reject the community
>> route. If a "brand selling stuff in the city, but it has no presence
>> there," can't register in that city domain, that may well be the right
>> result and the right model anyway. I'm pretty sure quite a number of
>> geo-gTLDs work that way (and some ccTLDs, too).
>> - We can't base a major policy decision on a fable, "The Story of the
>> Bad Actor Who Can't See Himself." This is a pile of inventions/assumptions
>> without any fact/evidence basis. A number of these assumptions are
>> incorrect: that "no intent at all" is the same thing as declaring that you
>> do not intend to associate the gTLD with a geo-place; that Donuts does no
>> marketing at all; that we are powerless to deal with the hypothetical
>> problem of marketing non-geos as geos; or that gTLDs marketed by nobody
>> will somehow go geo-viral.
>> - But, thank you for more clearly defining what you think is the
>> "loophole" -- non-geo-use gTLDs that turn back into geo-use gTLDs in
>> practice. This would exclude the "brand"-type non-geo use case from the
>> "loophole." It also excludes all "open" gTLDs being marketed in a non-geo
>> way (e.g., .spa). If we really are trying to "close" a "loophole," we need
>> to close only the loophole while preserving the non-geo use exception for
>> legitimate non-geo applicants. Eliminating the non-geo use exception for
>> some potential gTLDs is not "closing a loophole," it is "throwing the baby
>> out with the bathwater." I suspect that for some, "closing the loophole"
>> is just a smokescreen for gifting a number of potential gTLDs back to the
>> exclusive control of governments and public authorities.
>> - What you call a "loophole" is really intended as a *protection* for
>> legitimate non-geo registrants. That protection needs to be preserved. And
>> unlike the hypothetical sneaky applicant in the fable, there were actual
>> applicants in the last round who either benefited from the non-geo-use
>> protection, or should have benefited from it.
>>
>> Bottom line: the non-geo use pathway is a process that needs to be
>> tweaked or refined -- not eliminated.
>>
>> (Of course, if we are looking for "loopholes" to "eliminate", there is
>> one quite similar to "gTLDs registered as non-geos and then morphing back
>> into geo-use": TLDs registered as ccTLDs that have morphed into non-geo
>> use. These may not be within the WT5 remit, but they are a geo-related
>> issue nonetheless. But that's a discussion for another time and place...)
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:00 AM Alexander Schubert <
>> alexander at schubert.berlin> 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*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The (a) portion implies the so called “non-geo use provision”. So my
>>> suggestion would be to change it to:
>>>
>>> *(a) It is **either **clear from applicant statements within the*
>>>
>>> *application that the applicant will use the TLD*
>>>
>>> *primarily for purposes associated with the city*
>>>
>>> *name **or the city metro area population is exceeding a threshold of X*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> “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> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180909/be2551a6/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list