[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
Sun Sep 9 15:20:08 UTC 2018
OK. You are free to reply or not .There was no accusations at all .
On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 4:48 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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/ebbdfac2/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list