[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters

Mon Sep 24 22:40:52 UTC 2018

Thank you so much Alexander.  As you say, the impact would not be so great
- much less demand.

But I very much appreciate the explanations you give.

Regards
Maureen

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 12:27 PM, Alexander Schubert <
alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:

> Dear Maureen,
>
>
>
> You are addressing the problematic of smaller nations – and their even
> smaller cities and regions.
>
>
> Let’s look at the different harm scenarios by size of geo entity
>
> 1.       If a geo entity is “sizeable” (and industrialized – meaning
> people need domains) then the string is a target for portfolio applicants.
> E.g. cities over 500,000 or 1 Million people in industrialized nations.
> These strings are few in number – so there is no high risk that a “brand”
> would be interested. The risk are portfolio applicants trying to make quick
> bucks.
>
> 2.       If a geo entity is middle sized (say between 50,000 and 500,000
> people) then it’s not anymore really interesting for portfolio applicants
> (too few potential registrants to create high enough ROI)
> But there is a much higher number of geo entities: more brands that might
> bear the same name
>
> 3.       If a geo entity is really smallish (below 50,000 people) they
> are completely safe from portfolio applicants in my mind. But in the same
> time I can’t really imagine many cases where community constituents would
> ever want to run the string as a gTLD! Too small a place, too few
> prospective registrants.
> Hence even IF there was a brand that bears the same name: In case they
> would use the domain as brand gTLD; I don’t see harm in that.
>
>
>
> Obviously exceptions to these examples are always existing; “Aspen” in
> Colorado being one.
>
> There is also a market mechanism that impacts small country communities:
> The ccTLD of a small country is usually not very crowded; I suspect your
> “.ck” will be almost empty. You STILL always find a “good” available
> domain. But in a country like Germany there are (and Germany is world
> champion in this) 17 Million .de ccTLD domains. People just can’t find ANY
> available domain anymore. In such a country obviously a city name based
> gTLD is attracting registrants much faster. But even in a 2 Million people
> country like Latvia: you always get some nice domain. Or you can buy one
> for small money. So in that respect: very small region or city based gTLDs
> might be snagged up by brands – but does that really hurt? Yes: the string
> is then unavailable for the constituents of the geo location – but nobody
> would ever have applied for the name to make available domains anyway.
> Again: Some exceptions to that rule will exist.
>
> There is a German word that is used in English as well: “Realpolitik”. I
> am such “Realist”. If we ask for too much in regard with protections of geo
> names – the outcome will be that the 2012 AGB provisions will not be
> changed; or rather stay in place. And then nobody is helped.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Maureen Hilyard [mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, September 24, 2018 7:30 PM
> *To:* alexander at schubert.berlin
> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify
> existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters
>
>
>
> Hi Alexander
>
>
>
> As well as, and sometimes despite, other arguments that have been
> discussed, I agree with your suggestion about the legitimate interest of
> the target community. While I represent a region which is still in the
> "underserved" category and live in a country of 15 thousand people (at the
> last census), our small community would also like to be notified seeking
> consent if a name of traditional or cultural significance was being
> proposed for any gtld purpose.  Hypothetically, would our 15 thousand
> voices have the same affect for veto in the face of a business case that
> might be seen to benefit millions of others others outside of our realm?
>
>
>
> Maureen
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 2:03 AM, Alexander Schubert <
> alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:
>
> Hi Marita,
>
> "Dortmund" is a good example; albeit hypothetical: no such beer is
> existing.
> But there is a "JEVER" beer - a brand that I have seen in many countries.
> It's named after the city of Jever in northern Germany.
>
>  I really don't think that a (any) brand that is "free-riding" (legally,
> though) on the positive image of a city community (built over centuries by
> their constituents) should be allowed to take the city's identity in the
> DNS
> "off market" - just to egoistically represent themselves. That doesn't
> "fly"
> in Germany. Actually in most if not all of Europe that wouldn't fly.
> However
> I think that especially for sizeable city entities such case would be
> rather
> rare: The main risk is that portfolio applicants are raiding geo name land
> globally, oblivious (unconcerned) of the target community's needs
> (interests) but only yielding the short lived requirements of their VC
> funders: making cash FAST! In a wood analogy that would be:
> Portfolio applicant: cut all the wood, and sell it; never mind the
> resulting
> erosion or lost living environment for the forests inhabitants.
> City constituent owned, funded and policied applicant: MANAGE the usage of
> the wood in a way that creates a balance for all involved parties and their
> interests.
>
> While we are elaborating about the narrative of "legitimate interest":
>
> I think it leads us down a rabbit hole by judging the potential "legitimate
> interest" of the applicant entity. In the end of the day it all boils down
> to have policies and an active TLD management in place that meets the
> legitimate interest of the TARGET COMMUNITY; and it is the obligation of
> the
> applicant to meet those interests! This is not about the egoistic
> "interest"
> of the applicant (e.g. the interest to make fast ROI for his investors).
> Maybe I have different priorities than Robin - but for me THE PEOPLE come
> first: not the "interest" of some applicant entity.  A city name based gTLD
> is a piece of city infrastructure. It has to be suitable for the city's
> constituents. Their representatives (the city authority) is most likely
> best
> suited to evaluate whether the legitimate interests of said city community
> are being met.
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org]
> On
>
> Behalf Of Marita Moll
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 2:15 AM
> To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify
> existing geo-category policy of when to require govt letters
>
> Sorry Robin, I am trying to figure out what you mean in the following
> sentence: "Again, it would still prevent TLDs that have no legitimate
> interest in a geo-word from going forward, but it would allow for other
> legitimate users to have an opportunity to register the TLD of a word that
> falls into one of the existing geo-word categories as well."
>
> Suppose the beer company Dortmund wants to register .dortmund (a city in
> Germany)  -- only to promote its brand. The beer does come from Dortmund so
> there is a city connection. Would that be legitimate or not in your book?
> What is  "legitimate interest?" and "non-legitimate interest" and who
> decides?
>
> Thanks
>
> Marita
>
>
>
> On 9/23/2018 5:14 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> > I disagree, Jorge.  We already have an intended use standard for
> noncapital city names, so it is something that has already been part of the
> existing policy with respect to some categories of geo-names.  This
> proposal
> just takes ICANN's existing policy for noncapital city names and applies it
> to the other categories of geo-names that are in the guidebook.  Again, it
> would still prevent TLDs that have no legitimate interest in a geo-word
> from
> going forward, but it would allow for other legitimate users to have an
> opportunity to register the TLD of a word that falls into one of the
> existing geo-word categories as well.  Rather than take a "one side takes
> all" approach as we currently have, which allows one interest to extract
> "rents" or other concessions from anyone who also has a legitimate interest
> in using that string, we could try to balance the legitimate interests in
> order to be fair to all sides.  It is worth considering if we are sincere
> about finding a compromise.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Robin
> >
> >> On Sep 21, 2018, at 8:04 PM, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear all
> >>
> >> "Intended use" is very far from representing a compromise proposal.
> >>
> >> We have had the debate on this idea for more than a year, so it is of
> little use and efficiency for us repeating arguments that are abundantly
> reflected on the record, and, as I recall, in the working document.
> >>
> >> Let's see what the public consultation brings on these questions.
> >>
> >> best regards
> >>
> >> Jorge
> >>
> >> ps: I'll be on leave some days, so excuse me if I don't react for a
> while.
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >> Von: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> >> Datum: 21. September 2018 um 23:18:39 MESZ
> >> An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> >> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] proposal for discussion to modify
> existing
> geo-category policy of when to require govt letters
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> In follow-up to our WT5 meeting discussion earlier this week, I wanted
> to
> provide a more precise proposal for an amendment to policy requiring a
> govt.
> letter of support / non-objection from applicants of TLDs that are
> geo-words
> other than capital city names.
> >>
> >> The goal here is to target the harm to be prevented from a
> misrepresentation that the TLD speaks for the local authority when it isn't
> the case, while also allowing for other legitimate uses of a geo-word TLD
> to
> go forward.  So it is an attempt to balance two legitimate interests in a
> way that can find room for preventing the bad acts, but allowing lawful TLD
> uses to go forward.  It is a proposal for compromise to find middle ground.
> >>
> >> In short: applicants who intend to represent a connection to the
> authority of a non-capital city or other geo-category from the guidebook
> will need to provide a letter of support/non-objection as a means of
> verifying that connection.
> >>
> >> However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to
> the authority of the non-capital city or the other geo-categories from the
> guidebook, protections will be enhanced by inserting contractual
> requirements into the Registry Agreement that prevent the applicant from
> misrepresenting their connection or association to the geo-word.
> >>
> >> Putting aside capital cities, we will leave them as the policy currently
> exists, we would ONLY require the govt. letter for the other geo-words IF
> the use represents a connection to the authority.  So that would apply to
> non-capital city names and sub-national, unesco, etc. categories where
> govt.
> letters are currently at issue.
> >>
> >> More precisely worded proposal:
> >> Applicants who intend to represent a connection the the authority of a
> city, sub-national place, unesco region, or appearing on the "Composition
> of
> macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and
> selected economic and other groupings" list will need to provide a letter
> of
> support/non-objection.
> >>
> >> However, if the applicant does not intend to represent a connection to
> the authority of the geographic terms listed above, protections will
> instead
> be achieved by inserting contractual requirements into the Registry
> Agreement that prevent the applicant from misrepresenting their connection
> or association to the geographic term.
> >>
> >> I do invite comments, questions, and suggestions about this proposed
> amendment to the existing policy for geo-categories.  I don't claim this is
> a perfect proposal, but discussion could possibly help lead us to a better
> policy that attempts to balance differing legitimate interests in a more
> nuanced way than what we've got now.
> >>
> >> Thank you!
> >> Robin
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180924/e43e077e/attachment-0001.html>