[CPWG] added points in the CPE evaluation for cities/geonames?
Marita Moll
mmoll at ca.inter.net
Thu Jul 9 15:14:20 UTC 2020
Hi Alexander. I was among the contingent in WT5 trying to get some fair
advantage for cities. The force was against us. I think Alan's
suggestion of added points in CPE for a geoname/city which will used by
that entity as a "bit of a head start" if the name ends up in a string
contention was a good suggestion but it is late in the game.
I wonder how the rest of this community feels when presented with this
real live example of why it matters.
Marita
On 7/9/2020 10:16 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
>
> 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 don’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 écrit :
>
> /****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://www.adigo.com/icann
> [adigo.com]*
> <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=>
>
> At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki
> Space: *https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB*
>
> If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large
> staff at: *staff at atlarge.icann.org*
> <mailto: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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> 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/20200709/5a21adc7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CPWG
mailing list