[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!
Marita Moll
mmoll at ca.inter.net
Tue Jun 5 18:26:23 UTC 2018
Here is an example I just ran into. The city of Meissen in Germany --
pop. approx. 30,000 -- well known for it's porcelain industry which has
been part of this city since the 1700s.
town url is indirect (thank goodness for wikipedia which takes you
there) = http://www.stadt-meissen.de/
The url meissen.de leads you to meissen.com. That's the pottery factory.
Even the Meissen summer school of Internet governance (euroSSIG) has the
pottery site posted instead of the town site -- accidently, I'm sure.
This sort of thing is confusing to endusers and we should seek to avoid
it or at least clearly outline it.
I assume that the pottery factory got the top level becauseno letter of
support was requested or required. Perhaps this is a common tradeoff in
Germany as I think I have seen it before. Does it make sense to reserve
double barrelled tags like meissen-city for this purpose? Maybe it does.
If such examples could be deconstructed, perhaps it would lead us to
some defined strategies on resolving such conflicts.
Marita
On 6/4/2018 5:09 PM, Liz Williams wrote:
> Hello Kavouss
>
> I am sorry I wasn’t clear. What I meant was that it is entirely
> possible for an application to be submitted that relates to a
> geographic location that is contested between one or more parties and
> requiring government support would be an unreasonable burden on a
> legitimate applicant. I can think of many locations that could be
> interested in applying for a new TLD but am reluctant to choose
> examples because that may be inflammatory.
>
> The central point is that “requiring” government support for an
> application for a new TLD which is a geographic identifier, as opposed
> to having that support as only one element of evaluation criteria
> could be very unfair for applicants. The freedom of
> speech/international rights experts will be much better placed to make
> these arguments based on international norms (for example, from the
> United Nations).
>
> I am urging us to think of different policy principles that could be
> applied here…we are very close to that if we stick with “objective,
> transparent, known in advance” and so on. What we most certainly
> don’t want to do is create implementation systems that could put ICANN
> evaluators in the middle of picking winners in deeply political
> discussions which have nothing to do with the management of the domain
> name system.
>
> 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 <mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>
> www.auda.org.au <http://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 4 Jun 2018, at 9:09 pm, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Liz
>> I do not really understand the objectives of your text below
>> C) legitimate dissent where a geographic location is contested (in
>> all forms of geographic and cultural contest) but where it is
>> entirely feasible for a legitimate application to be submitted for
>> which freedom of expression is paramount. Mandating support or
>> “non-objection” is a guarantee of failure where the applicant may
>> have different views to the government of the day.
>> Kavouss
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Liz Williams
>> <liz.williams at auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>> wrote:
>>
>> The challenge with these kind of cut off
>> numbers/percentages/qualifiers is that they don’t recognise the
>> realities of
>>
>> A) numerous examples of where this just doesn’t work when
>> generic words clash with trademarks which clash with geographic
>> terms where no one right is more valid than any other.
>> B) competing applications (from the Perths or Londons or Rocks)
>> of the world which could be some of the largest cities in the
>> world to the tiniest island towns that want to connect their
>> unique identity to the global internet
>> C) legitimate dissent where a geographic location is contested
>> (in all forms of geographic and cultural contest) but where it is
>> entirely feasible for a legitimate application to be submitted
>> for which freedom of expression is paramount. Mandating support
>> or “non-objection” is a guarantee of failure where the applicant
>> may have different views to the government of the day.
>>
>> We must think clearly about neutral measures for evaluators to
>> measure applications…not coming up with select lists which we
>> will, guaranteed, get wrong.
>> 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 <mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>
>> www.auda.org.au <http://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 2 Jun 2018, at 12:15 pm, Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:justine.chew at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 <mailto: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 <http://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.*
>>>
>>> oAnd 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.*
>>>
>>> oYou 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
>>> <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
>>> <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://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
>>> <http://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
>>> <mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>]
>>> *Sent:* Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 06:39
>>> *To:* Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
>>> <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>
>>> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au
>>> <http://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
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>> <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/20180605/22119e75/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list