<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Good evening <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I have a lot of sympathy for simplicity on this issue; I think a timeline of 12 months should be appropriate; would be (I like to think) in the UK;
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Best<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Nigel <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> <b>On Behalf Of
</b>trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, October 14, 2023 3:07 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> alexander@schubert.berlin<br>
<b>Cc:</b> subpro-irt@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Alex, <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">I think you are overcomplicating this. The cities have some responsibility for their own actions. Your experience shows that it is generally difficult to get the cities to sign the letter. But if some do easily
without thinking about it then it’s on Them. Having the ability to revoke the non-opposition before application should be enough protection for them. That actually create a significant risk but the applicant who may have invested significantly in the application
only to have the rug pulled out from them at the last minute by the city but I guess that’s a risk they will have to bear. But this ability to revoke the non-oppsition must end at the time the application is filed or the applicant is even further prejudiced
by the late revocation after they paid their application fees. I say make the requirement that the applicant have the letter within 12 or 18 months of application and be done with it. In general I think we need to move toward simplicity and predictability.
Every aspect of the process and program can’t be complicated. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><o:p> </o:p></b></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Marc H.Trachtenberg</b> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chair, Internet, Domain Name, eCommerce, and Social Media Practice<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Shareholder<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Greenberg Traurig, LLP<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">77 West Wacker Drive<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chicago, IL 60601<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Office (312) 456-1020<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Mobile (773) 677-3305<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">On Oct 14, 2023, at 1:02 AM, Alexander <<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="color:#0E0E3F">*EXTERNAL TO GT*</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks for your email. You wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This has the same problem as my suggestion. It still requires a second government action. What if the application process required the applicant, at the time of submission, to attest that there have been no material changes that would compromise
the letter of support?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">No: in almost all cases the second approach (Government has the ability to retract a letter) doesn't require anything: some applicant acquired a letter of support very early on - nobody else tries to apply for the same city - everything
is fine. The letter of support continues to be valid - neither the applicant nor the Government have to act at all. And the problem I want to mitigate has nothing to do with "changes that compromise the letter of support".<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here the underlying problem again (you can skip the very long indented part if you know the underlying problem already in detail):<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In 2012 nobody knew at the time of application submission that city gTLDs would be financially successful and nobody knew that the contention set resolution would be an auction. Also: the application fees where prohibitive high at US $185,000.
This landscape has now changed completely: there is a huge incentive trying to get into a city-gTLD contention set, because:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The application fees will likely drop dramatically (hopefully not below US $100,000 - but maybe as low as $50k). For two applicants with letter of support (or non-objection) for the same city gTLD the AGB prescribes an auction as contention
set resolution. If you win the auction at $500k - you have an entire city gTLD for a fairly low amount - and can either sell it to someone in the city (e.g. a media company) for profit or "milk" the TLD (sell premium domains at high prices, make money during
the sunrise period with TM owners, etc) without any effort. If you lose the auction at $500k: you probably still get some of your application fees back AND the $500k as auction loser! Or you approach the other applicant (e.g. a city constituent managed, owned
and financed local grassroots community effort with the backing of the local business community) and ask "ransom": offer to withdraw your application early for a cash payment! In such case you get almost all application fees back AND cash in on the ransom.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I wanted to mitigate this scenario:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Some 'grey actor' (maybe even 'bad actor') sending out hundreds of requests to sign a simple letter of non-objection to city governments in industrial countries (U.S., EU, UK, etc) very early out, e.g. early next year. Merely a letter that
states basically "Once ICANN allows to apply for a gTLD '.yourcity' we intend to apply and subsequently operate it - so your businesses and organizations can have myname.yourcity domains at very low prices. Do you object such effort? If not then please sign
this letter!"<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sending out such letter to a few hundred city Governments is a simple and low cost effort. A certain percentage will sign the letter and return it: at such early time (e.g. early 2024) in most cases no local applicant entity will be yet
visible to the city Government. So why not signing a letter that sounds very harmless?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Then in 2026 the grey actor sits on a pile of such letters of non-objection, knows the application submission fees, can scout for local city based application efforts and target these strings. The grey actor will "make money" for sure. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Already in 2012 (with high application fees, no knowledge about auctions and a very convoluted environment that made the application process very difficult) we had all kinds of efforts to use gTLD applications as "investment vehicle".<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">How do we tackle the problem? Most if not all geo gTLDs will be cities. I started (together with Dirk and Katrin) out to form such applicant entity already in 2006. As early as 2019 I formed an applicant entity for the next round - including
lobbying at the city government level and within the business community (presenting in person to chambers and business associations). In the U.S.! Here their very predictable feedback:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">"We don't want 'somebody' to operate our city gTLD namespace with the priority to 'make money' - instead the gTLD should be managed with a focus on creating a maximum benefit for all city constituents. Example:
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tires.city__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjzRB04gLVq-oy-JJDfESzKMKF2FbAPA4h170Ef3mUdC4uC6GjgIJjQE5m28k_5_ru873Un1-GEMSXy9Zn$">
tires.city</a>, <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://books.city__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjzRB04gLVq-oy-JJDfESzKMKF2FbAPA4h170Ef3mUdC4uC6GjgIJjQE5m28k_5_ru873Un1-GEBzPpGx7$">
books.city</a> or <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dentist.city__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjzRB04gLVq-oy-JJDfESzKMKF2FbAPA4h170Ef3mUdC4uC6GjgIJjQE5m28k_5_ru873Un1-GEPBQH-1w$">
dentist.city</a> shouldn't be auctioned off to 'somebody' who maybe sits far away in California and will just hold the domain for speculative reasons or to run some Amazon affiliate website (siphoning off revenues to online businesses outside of our city):
instead we want to auction premium domains within our city business community so that these premium domains positively impact the local business community and keep revenues in the city. E.g.
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://books.city__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjzRB04gLVq-oy-JJDfESzKMKF2FbAPA4h170Ef3mUdC4uC6GjgIJjQE5m28k_5_ru873Un1-GEBzPpGx7$">
books.city</a> supporting one or all bookstores in the city - and not the Amazon online bookstore. We want books to be sold locally - not via online store from far away. We want a tight community control. We are willing to fund the effort in return. The effort
should be community owned, managed and funded. And non-profit. Like a chamber. Not profit maximization for the gTLD operator but positive community impact should guide the gTLD management. Especially the management of the impact domain names."<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="composer_signature">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sorry for the long explanation: but do you now see the problem? How to make sure a city government has the explicit or implicit power to empower such local effort over some entity that just wants to cash in at auctions (or negotiate ransom
outside of auctions) and that has solicited a simple letter of non-objection very early on (e.g. 2024)?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hence my suggestion that the signature under such letter of non-objection shouldn't be older than 6 months. If you are tight knit with your city government then getting a new signature on an older letter shouldn't take more than a few days.
But even if it took a year: 6 months before application date PLUS seemingly 9 months 'late filing' per AGB - that's an extraordinary long period of time for getting a city major to sign a letter. At least for a city Government.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Or allow the Government to retract a premature signed letter of non-objection if they want to support a local effort that wasn't visible at the time such letter was signed.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We had exactly that problem in the 2012 round with .africa: ages old support letter from one applicant that allegedly had already been retracted - but the AGB had no specifications in that relation: a signed letter is a signed letter, period.
Which resulted in an extraordinary vicious fight that caused intolerable delays and was very costly and exhausting for the applicants, ICANN and the community at large. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Maybe we should have both:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">A minimum requirement for the age of the signature (6 months plus 9 months AGB late filing) and the stipulation that a retracted letter is insufficient for application. This provides a much better control to the city Government: the entity
elected by their citizens to manage all aspects pertaining their city. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Alexander <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Alexander Schubert <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.linkedin.com/in/AlexanderSchubert__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjzRB04gLVq-oy-JJDfESzKMKF2FbAPA4h170Ef3mUdC4uC6GjgIJjQE5m28k_5_ru873Un1-GEG9itUFq$">www.linkedin.com/in/AlexanderSchubert</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">+1(202)684-6806<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">-------- Original message --------<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">From: <a href="mailto:samlanfranco@gmail.com">
samlanfranco@gmail.com</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Date: 14/10/23 01:59 (GMT+02:00) <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">To: <a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">
alexander@schubert.berlin</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Cc: trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT <<a href="mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org">subpro-irt@icann.org</a>>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Topic 21.1: Geographic Names - Updated
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Alexander writes:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">"How about the following: If the government entity withdraws their letter of support before the application deadline – such letter would be illegible to support the application? We have such provision in the
AGB for later stages of the geo gTLD life cycle – just not for the application phase. That would work, too."<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">This has the same problem as my suggestion. It still requires a second government action. What if the application process required the applicant, at the time of submission, to attest that there have been no
material changes that would compromise the letter of support? <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">If there were none, we'll and good. If there were changes, the applicant would have compromised their application with a false submission. There could be a grey area here, but when are there not risks of grey
areas.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Just a thought.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Sam Lanfranco <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Internet Elder, Internet Ecologist, 416 816-2852<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
SubPro-IRT mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org">SubPro-IRT@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjzRB04gLVq-oy-JJDfESzKMKF2FbAPA4h170Ef3mUdC4uC6GjgIJjQE5m28k_5_ru873Un1-GEND6o9aF$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjzRB04gLVq-oy-JJDfESzKMKF2FbAPA4h170Ef3mUdC4uC6GjgIJjQE5m28k_5_ru873Un1-GEND6o9aF$</a>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 (<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjzRB04gLVq-oy-JJDfESzKMKF2FbAPA4h170Ef3mUdC4uC6GjgIJjQE5m28k_5_ru873Un1-GEOHgNhyU$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjzRB04gLVq-oy-JJDfESzKMKF2FbAPA4h170Ef3mUdC4uC6GjgIJjQE5m28k_5_ru873Un1-GEOHgNhyU$</a>
) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjzRB04gLVq-oy-JJDfESzKMKF2FbAPA4h170Ef3mUdC4uC6GjgIJjQE5m28k_5_ru873Un1-GEL61nQ7b$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DE0TDM20erVjzRB04gLVq-oy-JJDfESzKMKF2FbAPA4h170Ef3mUdC4uC6GjgIJjQE5m28k_5_ru873Un1-GEL61nQ7b$</a>
). 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at
<a href="mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com">postmaster@gtlaw.com</a>, and do not use or disseminate the information.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>