[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!

[Justine Chew]

Alexander,

I very much like the idea of a percentage of citizens of a nation as
consideration for qualifying select list of cities in order to not exclude
smaller cities from protective measures enjoyed by capital cities and ISO
3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions. Percentages would work much better than
absolute values.

Thank
​ you for suggesting this.​


Justine
-----

On 1 June 2018 at 23:28, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
wrote:

> Greg,
>
>
>
> So in other words folks who are trying to preserve identity rights for
> city inhabitants are “GEO Supremacists” in your eyes? I assume you just
> want to showcase your extreme displeasure with the suggested protective
> measures. Just search “USA supremacy” in google.com; and you know why it
> hurts to be called a “supremacist”. Maybe you weren’t aware how insulting
> the term is.
>
>
> But trying to stay on the topic matter:
>
> ·        *I think we have reached general agreement that the public
> representatives for inhabitants of certain geo-entities deserve the
> unilateral right to vet an identical gTLD application.*
>
> o   And in the languages that matters! See Moscow: Even when only a
> smaller percentage of Muscovites speaks English – the gTLD is bilingual;
> one gTLD in English and an IDN version in Russian. Just the local language
> isn’t enough in a globalized world. I am a good example in this case:  For
> my Russian traveling I use schubert.moscow – and I wouldn’t want an IDN
> version. I hope it’s not too “supremacist” when a metropole desires their
> well-known global brand in the English language as well (being a capital or
> not – Moscow was covered as it is capital).
>
> ·        *Examples of the above mentioned agreed on protective measures
> are capital cities or ISO 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions. *
>
> ·        *My suggestion is that we extend the same rights to cities once
> these meet a certain threshold.*
>
> o   You suggest that this should be a “select list”. So we have to define
> the threshold that defines the “list”. This could be an absolute number of
> inhabitants – or a percentage of citizens – or the lower of both values.
> Example: the city needs to have at minimum 250,000 inhabitants – or at
> least 2.5% of the nation’s population. The exact measures need to be
> explored. This way in countries with less than 10 Million people (and that
> is WELL more than half of all countries in the world) slightly smaller
> cities are protected as well. Latvia has 2 Million people – 2.5% equals
> 50,000! That protects 4 cities aside of the capital.
>
> ·        *If a city doesn’t make the “select list” the 2012 AGB rules
> apply:  government support only required if geo-use intent.*
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Freitag, 1. Juni 2018 06:44
> *To:* Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net>
>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for
> requirement of letters of non-objection!
>
>
>
> I’m in favor of TLDs being applied for and used as city TLDs by those
> cities or on their behalf.
>
>
>
> I’m open to the idea that a very small and  select list of cities would
> have veto/blocking/consent/non-objection privileges (practically, they’re
> all pretty much the same) over any use of a string identical to their name
> (in the language of  that city), even for non-geo uses.
>
>
>
> I’m open to the idea of a larger group of cities that would have those
> privileges, but only in the context of use in connection with that city.
>
>
>
> I’m not in favor of a general rule based on the geosupremacist idea that a
> geo use is superior to all other uses.  I’m really not in favor of a
> general rule that non-use/non-application for geo purposes should get in
> the way of an application for another use of that same string.
>
>
>
> Strings have multiple meanings and uses.  There is no general rule of a
> hierarchy of rights among legitimate uses of that string. There is
> certainly no hierarchy that puts geo uses at the  top of the list every
> time.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 7:54 PM Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> I know I am a bit late in tuning into these thoughts by Alexander. But
> it's never too late to say "well said."
>
> I am reminded that, in it's earliest days, the Internet itself was
> considered a public resource. Even the slightest bit of advertising was
> shunned! We have come a long way from there. But we still have a chance to
> retain some of that original spirit. The city domain name space could be
> seen and managed as a resource for public benefit as Alexander suggests.
>
> And that would have to be by design."It doesn't happen by accident."
>
> Marita Moll
>
>
>
> On 5/22/2018 11:34 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
>
> Dear Liz,
>
>
>
> I am a domain broker and “domainer” since 21 years and have consequently
> analyzed the market from “inside” – ESPECIALLY when it comes to newly
> minted gTLDs. I have participated in all new gTLD introductions in the
> past, from .info, over .us (liberation in  2001), .eu and so on. And there
> is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between a historical grown name space like
> “.com” or a ccTLD and new name spaces:
>
> If 10% of names in .com or .de are speculative registrations - .com will
> survive just fine. No problem. But:
> A new gTLD is like a new “land” – best to be compared with for example
> Dubai. Imagine the rulers of Dubai had sold building lots for “cost value”;
> say for US $2,000 per lot. They would probably have sold high volumes – but
> unlikely that ANYTHING would have really being developed there. The “dirt”
> would have remained what it is: “dirt”. Speculators would have speculated.
> But wisely the Dubai rulers demanded from all land buyers to DEVELOP their
> land – and build something; “something” that by now is the sparkling
> community we all know: DUBAI!
>
> In Chicago there were several blocks of sub premium land. Some people
> bought houses cheaply – and did NOTHING. But others developed the land
> around – and made the area “valuable”. Guess how the people who bought
> cheap and then waited until the area became valuable were called? No. Not
> “clever investors”. They were labeled “free-riders”. They bought cheap and
> did nothing – waited for the land to “mature” – then sold for prices that
> were high due to the work of others. That’s what “domain investors” do:
> they buy the premium land – let it sit for 5 to 10 years – THEN SELL for
> 1,000 times the “investment”. “Clever”? Nope: Mismanagement, free-Riding
> and damages the name-space: nothing is being developed – no “Sparkling
> Dubai” – all remains dirt. Legal – but doesn’t really advance the
> experience of the Internet user.
>
> It’s all a question of public benefit philosophy – or the absence of any.
>
> Regarding “local business”:
> Yes, of course one could argue that a domain tires.denver owned by
> speculator and operating a tires.com Affiliate website isn’t too bad.
> After all people in Denver can buy tires on the website, and the domain
> owner “invested funds”, the registry got some money in the premium auction
> (e.g. US $2k – even if the domain is worth US $50k), and: “all OK, no?”.
> Free market, and let the registry do what they want.
> My view on this:  A city gTLD is a VALUABLE RESCOURCE, that should aid the
> city community. It should be MANAGED – and ideally in a way that impacting
> domains like business verticals are supporting LOCAL business. The U.S. is
> CHOKING on a gigantic import-export deficit: stuff is being bought ABROAD
> instead nationally. The same is true for local communities: The Internet
> serves as a Trojan horse to shift local business outside the city.  Tires
> being bought at a tires.com Affiliate site displayed at tires.denver
> shift revenue OUTSIDE Denver. Apartments leased via an Affiliate site at
> apartments.denver destroy local real estate businesses. This list goes on
> and on and on. The huge advantage of a locally MANAGED city gTLD is to
> ADVANCE LOCAL BUSINESS! Hence “.denver”! If you wanted to buy tires
> SOMEWHERE – then do it. But the very idea of a .city gTLD is that it
> promotes LOCAL BUSINESSES! And that doesn’t happen by “accident” – it has
> to be promoted and MANAGED. And the ones who do that best are the local
> business constituencies – business associations, chambers, etc.!
>
>
>
> Imagine somebody bought a wood (large property full of trees) for cheap
> money – and would harvest ALL trees, and sell them at once: Yes, they would
> make a profit. Is it good for the land? Nope – the land will erode. Hence
> laws and rules regulate wood harvesting. It’s the same with city gTLDs.
> Selling all the premium domains in SEDO auctions to “investors” makes money
> – and drives registration volume: but it deprives the namespace of creating
> “beacon” domains that serve as brand ambassadors for the city gTLD.
>
> Took me a few years to develop all these thoughts. I am thinking about
> community name spaces since 2004. I love earning money – but I love even
> more when I serve people while doing so. Not all life is about making cash
> fast.
>
> So when a city Government is being presented with a city constituencies
> funded, owned, managed and marketed “non-profit” effort to advance the city
> – and on the other hand with an operator that merely “makes the namespace
> available”: let the cities representatives decide. I agree with you: ICANN
> should NOT “tell applicants where to base their business” or how to operate
> it. It’s fine when there are offshore based portfolio applicants with large
> amounts of VC money running around and trying to convince cities to operate
> a valuable and important city infrastructure. But allow the city to decide
> whom they pick – don’t let VC money “brute force” ownership of city
> namespaces.
>
> Btw: Sadly the “managing” part wasn’t well developed in the first batch of
> city gTLDs. I think this will dramatically change in the next round.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Liz Williams [mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au
> <liz.williams at auda.org.au>]
> *Sent:* Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 06:39
> *To:* Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
> <alexander at schubert.berlin>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for
> requirement of letters of non-objection!
>
>
>
> Hello Alexander
>
>
>
> I wanted to explore a little further your assertion that an applicant for
> a geo-TLD should be locally based.  Our freedom of expression/civil
> liberties colleagues will have a better handle on those imperatives but I
> wonder why one would expect an applicant to be located in the community
> when, for example, a geographic domain name label may be a means of
> expressing dissent or difference from the current government?  It is not a
> pre-requisite for ICANN to be telling applicants who meet the evaluation
> criteria that they should be “local”.   We also know that the Internet
> enables us to be wherever we want to be to do business…that is one of the
> most amazing characteristics of the Internet.
>
>
>
> It is also not desirable for ICANN to tell applicants where they should
> locate their businesses.  Organisations legitimately and perfectly legally
> choose the registered location for  their business based on, for example,
> tax treatment, ease of doing business, rule of law, incentives for
> entrepreneurs, bandwidth and timezone.  Those are all good things we
> wouldn’t want to interfere with.
>
>
>
> I doubt that it is supportable to have a prohibition on entities applying
> for several geographic labels.  What if it were a good thing that an expert
> registry operator was able to provide services to communities in unique and
> attractive ways?  I would have thought that is a nice niche business that
> could benefit communities in good ways?
>
>
>
> And finally, I don’t understand the problem with domain investors.  Those
> domain name owners are legitimate purchasers of domain names at the second
> level.  Many registry operators are propped up by those investors and the
> secondary domain name market is active and mature which is another
> indicator of competition and consumer choice.  I think we can all agree
> that mis-using a domain name, whoever owns it, isn’t a desirable market
> outcome but there are measures in place to deal with that.
>
>
>
> Looking forward to the views of others.
>
>
>
> Liz
>
> ….
> Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs
> .au Domain Administration Ltd
> M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757
> E: liz.williams at auda.org.au www.auda.org.au
>
> Important Notice
> This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject
> to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee
> only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or
> copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake,
> please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
>
>
>
> On 20 May 2018, at 9:40 pm, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Christopher,
>
> I completely understand (and support) your notion, that an applicant for a
> geo-gTLD should be locally rooted; ideally geo-community funded, managed
> and marketed. And I am completely in agreement with you that we should
> create policy that prevents that a few big players are blanketing the
> geo-gTLD space with hundreds of applications each a copy & paste job of the
> other, with absolutely zero knowledge of the specific city community and no
> intent to further THEIR specific agenda – instead trying to make money FAST.
>
> And obviously letters of non-objection will help a lot – because by 2020
> the mayors of a major cities WILL know a bit about the pitfalls of the
> management for city gTLDs (consultants will bring them up to speed and help
> them to navigate the jungle of examining the applicants funding, marketing,
> community-engagement and rooting, management, etc).
>
> You suggest a measure to reduce mass land-grab: “Prohibition to apply for
> several geo-gTLDs for the same entity”. I was a “domainer” (shame on me)
> since 1997,  and then started to create community based gTLDs in 2004
> (.berlin was a community owned, funded, managed and designated gTLD
> application, as was the .gay applicant I founded). I personally know quite
> a bunch of “domainers turned portfolio applicants”. And I know their
> abilities, their endurance. They will simply have a legal entity in each
> city – intelligently managed through notaries acting on their behalf.  I am
> happy to help looking into policy that is designed to stop geo-name land
> grab; but the measure proposed by you is probably easily to be gamed.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180602/e1e23c74/attachment-0001.html>