[CPWG] REMINDER / Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 08 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC

Thu Jul 9 14:16:00 UTC 2020

Hi there,

Dirk and me started the applicant for .berlin in 2005 and I am doing it again for a few U.S. cities like “Tampa” (dotTAMPA.org): Public-benefit, non-profits, owned, funded and governed by stakeholders of the city (and not me or venture capitalists). I am merely the management entity – and get paid to manage the process. I just spent half a year in Tampa and rallied the city, the mayor, chambers, business organizations and associations behind the project. They all clearly state, that THEY want to govern “their” namespace – and not that like in .miami some offshore company in the British Virgin Islands is doing it.

Obviously we will apply as community priority applicant – and with STELLAR support (expect 1,000 plus entities). I have a bit of experience with acquiring support: we did for .berlin (200 entities) and a LOT for .gay (of which I was the founder, we had some 250 support statements).

Logically I participated in all the geo gTLD efforts since even before the 2007 PDP started. And especially in WT5. And let me tell you: cities are so not protected at all right now. The bare minimum would be that a community priority applicant would get a bonus if they represent the city community. If there are two community applicants for the same city: the advantage nullifies and all is fine. If there is another applicant (e.g. a brand): why shouldn’t the city community applicant get a bit of head start? Large cities like Berlin are as important as ccTLDs – in fact half of all ccTLDs are population wise SMALLER than Berlin. The trend in the Internet is going local – especially in industrialized countries. Locality identifiers have immense potential – hence need protection. It would be so unfair if there was “some” applicant for .tampa who evades the requisite “letter of support” by simple not declaring that the string targets the city (yes: it’s that easy to circumvent the requirement) – then we lose CPE and have to bid against some venture capitalist company in an offshore location.

Albeit: This is pretty late in the game to change anything. Please decide quickly. When I told the mayor of Tampa that some offshore company could simply “buy” the name of the city community that she is tasked to lead: she was ready to jump somebodies throat. For you it’s “just a city name” – for those in charge of the wellbeing of the citizens and their businesses it’s “their” identity. Tampa is TIRELESSLY working on “getting their name out” – to deprive them of their digital identity online would be cruel. You might say: “And does it matter who operates .tampa”? Yes. Check out airport.miami or southbeach.miami (arguably the two biggest brand ambassadors for Miami): both “for sale” by domain scalpers. In .tampa all these names (port.tampa, airport.tampa, city.tampa, ybor.tampa, police.tampa, chamber.tampa, fire.tampa, gas.tampa, electricity.tampa, water.tampa, solidwaste.tampa, taxes.tampa, dmv.tampa,  and that list has already close to 1,000 names) are reserved for the respective entities and will be routed to their existing website contents at day one (paid for by the public-benefit registry). A city needs zoning – and the digital presence of the city needs “digital zoning”. It’s called “Namespace Management” – and remarkably few gTLDs are engaged in it. Most registries try to drive registration numbers (usually by investors who don’t make any use of the names). We are trying to maximize community “impact”.

So in my eyes the combination of community priority applicant AND “city designation” qualifies for an extra bonus in the CPE. Be reminded: if you make a city designation you will be required to provide written support by the mayor. This prevents that anybody is “gaming the system”. And getting through CPE is so damn hard. We tried for .gay. TWICE. 

I hope that as public-benefit, non-profit community priority application manager it’s “OK” to speak up here. This effort is BASED on the very needs of the “At Large” community. And I am happy for any input. These city gTLDs are trying to maximize the benefit of the Internet user – not trying to line the pockets of the venture capitalists that fund the average gTLD. Hence we do not acquire any VC money (and VC wouldn’t be interested to fund a public benefit, nonprofit). 

Thanks for hearing me,

Alexander.berlin

From: CPWG [mailto:cpwg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of mail at christopherwilkinson.eu CW
Sent: Donnerstag, 9. Juli 2020 15:57
To: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Cc: lac-discuss-en <lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; cpwg at icann.org; atlasiiiparticipants at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CPWG] REMINDER / Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 08 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC

Cher Tijani : Je ne peux pas être d'accord avec toi sur ce point.

Nous n'avons plus d'affaire avec « …a commercial entity, a government or a community »

Désormais il s'agit de protéger - d'une manière ou d'un autre – les véritables demandes provenant des pays et des communités locales contre les entités hybrides Registry/Registrar qui :

- bénéficient des règles actuelles d'intégration verticale

- ont les projets de constituer des portefeuilles spéculatives de TLD géographiques

- qui peuvent faire appel à des resources financiers tiers, notamment lorsqu'il s'agit des sûr en chères, et

- qui exploitent les règles trop souples du WT5 en matière de l'utilisation géographique des gTLD.

Tout cela sera discuté en profondeur bientôt par le CPWG. 

Entre temps, « cave emptor »

Bien à toi

Christopher

El 9 de julio de 2020 a las 10:46 Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn> > escribió: 

Hi Alan,

So, that's it: you want us to ask the addition of the geo-name nature of the string applied for as a criterion for the CPE to decide whether the application is Community one or not.

In my opinion, it's absolutely irrelevent. Any geo-name could be applied for by a commercial entity, a government or a community. The fact that it is a geo-name shouldn't give more credit to the applicat even if it is a community. Any application is not more community one when it is for the geo-name string.

Tijani

Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> > a écrit :

Many geoname TLDs delegated in the last round were in fact community applications (although I don't know if any went through the CPE since that only happens if they are contested.

The question here is that IF you are applying for a geoname, and IF you are applying as a community TLD, then should you get extra points under the CPE because it is a geoname (that is, it improves your chances of satisfying the CPE and thus winning over some other applicant.

I am not sure we have a strong case for getting this approved, nor am I sure it is even worth the effort to try, but I see it as a good thing if we could.

Alan

At 2020-07-08 11:50 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

Dear Jonathan and all,

Following up on our discussion today during the CPWG call about the geo-names, I would like to explain why I donâ€™t think that geo-names should be incorporated into the CPWG evaluation.
In fact, the CPE role is to evaluate whether the application is a community application or not (this is what Alan explained and what I agreed on). So how it might be incorporated? as a criterion to decide if the application is a community application? Shall we request that if the application is for a geo-name string, the CPE should consider it as a community application?
The CPE evaluates if the applicant represents a community and if the application serves that community whatever the string applied for is (geo-name, language name, culture name, etc.).

Tijani

Le 8 juil. 2020 Ã  07:34, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff at atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org>  > a Ã©crit :

***If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff at staff at atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org>  with your preferred number***

Dear All,

The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 08 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC for 90 mins.

For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y9ghlcz3

The agenda and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/XYRIC

Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/97147867051?pwd=NWswK1duaUtHclBxaksyRC8wekxCQT09 / Passcode: 2345cpwg**

Real time transcription (RTT) available at (subject to availability): https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net] [streamtext.net] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.streamtext.net_player-3Fevent-3DICANN-2520-255bstreamtext.net-255d&d=DwMFAw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=3swqZGyi6FKCwbtdXsS00KG30nSf_mvmyNeQfXOhtnE&s=Lv8slVV_rkW85WWduFmCXZqG6gKKvj2Dqn_0ObROKVs&e=> 

ADIGO Conference Bridge:
EN: 1638
ES: 1738
FR: 1838

Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865

Other toll-free numbers:  <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.adigo.com_icann&d=DwMFAw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=v_dW7H6jSlA9nOi38W8-O0NNugHRJaIXFir99n2INTw&s=2UDiAMNbva1Qtvc7Gxe4uYEmKjLJ0Ue93B3VR6GVJPw&e=> https://www.adigo.com/icann [adigo.com]

At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space:  <https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB> https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB

If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at:  <mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org> staff at atlarge.icann.org

Thank you.
Kind regards,

At-Large Staff

ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community
Website: atlarge.icann.org [atlarge.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge.icann.org_&d=DwMFbw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=aD5IHW82ib60gM4_5F5DNkT_NsLdtJUGtBDmTkRfPFo&s=93X6eo5QBNEA4dghH6ByIbJdqCYsQp0fnY8sc7Vwwe0&e=> 
Facebook: facebook.com/icann [facebook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icannatlarge&d=DwMFbw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=aD5IHW82ib60gM4_5F5DNkT_NsLdtJUGtBDmTkRfPFo&s=VNZ6ZSmeW2apxVI2RcrRby4-v06-vT5xD0df7SPovEg&e=>  atlarge [facebook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icannatlarge&d=DwMFbw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=aD5IHW82ib60gM4_5F5DNkT_NsLdtJUGtBDmTkRfPFo&s=VNZ6ZSmeW2apxVI2RcrRby4-v06-vT5xD0df7SPovEg&e=> 
Twitter: @ [twitter.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANNAtLarge&d=DwMFbw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=aD5IHW82ib60gM4_5F5DNkT_NsLdtJUGtBDmTkRfPFo&s=6aeZ9cfKyzr-18xGZ1aYRiQLFtYoAkS5DnnZTolk3Jg&e=>  ICANNAtLarge [twitter.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANNAtLarge&d=DwMFbw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=aD5IHW82ib60gM4_5F5DNkT_NsLdtJUGtBDmTkRfPFo&s=6aeZ9cfKyzr-18xGZ1aYRiQLFtYoAkS5DnnZTolk3Jg&e=> 

<At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call[28].ics>_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Tijani BEN JEMAA 

_______________________________________________ 
CPWG mailing list 
CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>  
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg 

_______________________________________________ 
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BENJEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Telephone: +216 52 385 114
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

_______________________________________________ 
CPWG mailing list 
CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>  
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg 

_______________________________________________ 
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20200709/e5b93ed9/attachment-0001.html>