<div dir="ltr">Rosalia ,jorge ,christopher and Alexander +1<div>Kavouss </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 10:41 PM Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">Dear All <div>I do not support Greg</div><div>Kavouss<br><br><div id="m_4611767646660345396AppleMailSignature">Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On 7 Sep 2018, at 22:40, Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>I also support Alexander<div>Kavouss <br><br><div id="m_4611767646660345396AppleMailSignature">Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On 5 Sep 2018, at 14:47, Marita Moll <<a href="mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net" target="_blank">mmoll@ca.inter.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Sorry I had to miss
the call. I do want to add my support to Alexander's suggestion
on establishing a category for cities of (x) size <br>
</font></p>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Anybody
willing to support my suggestion:</span>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Have
cities with populations over X being treated like capital
cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)</span></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">X
to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or
both.</span></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">This
provision could be included in the “non-capital cities” silo. <br>
</span></p>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"></span>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Marita<br>
</font></p>
<br>
<div class="m_4611767646660345396moz-cite-prefix">On 9/5/2018 4:00 AM, Alexander Schubert
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="m_4611767646660345396WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">As
we both are quite vocal on this topic I try to be short:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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!<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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”. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Moving
on ……<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Anybody
willing to support my suggestion:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Have
cities with populations over X being treated like capital
cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">X to
be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or
both.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">This
provision could be included in the “non-capital cities”
silo. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The
current language in the 2012 AGB reads:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2e75b6">An
application for a city name will be subject to the<u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2e75b6">geographic
names requirements (i.e., will require<u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2e75b6">documentation
of support or non-objection from<u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2e75b6">the
relevant governments or public authorities) if:<u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2e75b6"><u></u> <u></u></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2e75b6">(a)
It is clear from applicant statements within the<u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2e75b6">application
that the <u>applicant will use the TLD<u></u><u></u></u></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><b><i><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2e75b6">primarily
for purposes</span></u></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2e75b6">
associated with the city<u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2e75b6">name<u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span><span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span></i><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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! .......... </span></i></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span><i>.........</i><i><span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></i></span></span><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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 ...............</span></i></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396MsoListParagraph"><br>
<i><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
</span></i></p>
<b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#c00000"><u></u><u></u></span></i></b>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">“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! <br>
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! <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Thoughts?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Thanks,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Alexander<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
Greg Shatan [<a class="m_4611767646660345396moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 05, 2018 5:43 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="m_4611767646660345396moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank">alexander@schubert.berlin</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5
<a class="m_4611767646660345396moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank"><gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include
a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for
sizeable cities” in the report<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I
think the Community Priority Evaluation survived the
attempt at "hole poking" pretty much unscathed:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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.</span><u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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.</span><u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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.</span><u></u><u></u></li>
</ul>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Moving
on...</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">extending
the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo
categories</span><u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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).</span><u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Eliminating
the sub-national category (since it is full of
obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use"
provision.</span><u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Once
a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations
and translations are unconditionally available for
registration</span><u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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.</span><u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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!)</span><u></u><u></u></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">There
may be others, but that's a start.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Best
regards,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Greg</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM
Alexander Schubert <<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>>
wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Hi Emily,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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).
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
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:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396m-2906189528103137873msolistparagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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! </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396m-2906189528103137873msolistparagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396m-2906189528103137873msolistparagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Long story short: Nope,
“community priority application” is NOT the answer
to the problem. In my mind.<br>
<br>
<b>So my suggestion (yes, again!):</b></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396m-2906189528103137873msolistparagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Have cities with
populations over X being treated like capital
cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use
provision)</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396m-2906189528103137873msolistparagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">X to be debated by either
us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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”?<br>
<br>
Thanks for hearing my out,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Alexander.berlin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> Emily Barabas [mailto:<a href="mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org" target="_blank">emily.barabas@icann.org</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07
PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>;
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5]
Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting -
Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Hi Alexander, </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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 <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-08-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Work+Track+5" target="_blank">here</a>
and transcript <a href="https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript-rpm-review-22aug18-en.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">An updated work plan taking
into account this change will be discussed tomorrow
under agenda item 3.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Kind regards,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Emily</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">From: </span></b><span style="color:black">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org</a>>
on behalf of Alexander Schubert <<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b>"<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>"
<<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50<br>
<b>To: </b>"<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5]
Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday
5 September at 5:00 UTC</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Hi,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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<sup>th</sup> – but
obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even
close).<br>
<br>
Thanks,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Alexander</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
[mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Emily Barabas<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed
Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5
September at 5:00 UTC</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear Work Track 5 members,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Please find below the
proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled
for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90
minutes. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396m-2906189528103137873p1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">1.
Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins)</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396m-2906189528103137873p1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">2.
Non-AGB Terms (65 mins)</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396m-2906189528103137873p1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">3.
Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins)</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_4611767646660345396m-2906189528103137873p1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">4.
AOB (5 mins)</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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 <a href="mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-secs@icann.org</a>.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Kind regards,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Emily</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Emily Barabas </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">| Policy Manager</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ICANN</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> | Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Email: <a href="mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org" target="_blank">emily.barabas@icann.org</a>
| Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_4611767646660345396mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
<a class="m_4611767646660345396moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>
<a class="m_4611767646660345396moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a></span></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div>