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 à 07:34, ICANN At-Large Staff <<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff@atlarge.icann.org> a écrit :

***If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff at <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff@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>https://tinyurl.com/y9ghlcz3

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

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

Real time transcription (RTT) available at (subject to availability): <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=>https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net] [streamtext.net]

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@atlarge.icann.org>staff@atlarge.icann.org

Thank you. Kind regards,

At-Large Staff

ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: <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=>atlarge.icann.org [atlarge.icann.org] Facebook: <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=>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] Twitter: <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=>@ [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]

<At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call[28].ics>_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list <mailto:CPWG@icann.org>CPWG@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>https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>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@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.

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@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@mcgill.ca mailto:alan.greenberg@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 à 07:34, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org > a écrit :

***If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff at staff@atlarge.icann.org mailto:staff@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_play...

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=D...

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: staff@atlarge.icann.org mailto:staff@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=Dw... Facebook: facebook.com/icann [facebook.com] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icanna... atlarge [facebook.com] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icanna... Twitter: @ [twitter.com] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANNAtLarg... ICANNAtLarge [twitter.com] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANNAtLarg...

<At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call[28].ics>_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org mailto:CPWG@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@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@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.

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@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW *Sent:* Donnerstag, 9. Juli 2020 15:57 *To:* Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Cc:* lac-discuss-en <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; cpwg@icann.org; atlasiiiparticipants@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@topnet.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@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@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@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 à 07:34, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> > a écrit :

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

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=D...>

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@atlarge.icann.org* <mailto:staff@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=Dw...> Facebook: facebook.com/icann [facebook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icanna...> atlarge [facebook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icanna...> Twitter: @ [twitter.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANNAtLarg...> ICANNAtLarge [twitter.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANNAtLarg...>

<At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call[28].ics>_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@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@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@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@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@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@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.

Hi Christopher, As Tijani said, I think everyone had their eye on what happened with .amazon when crafting this approach. However, I agree with your PoV and in fact believe that the utterly bogus "community" case for the .amazon TLD actually bolsters your case. Having said that, I've personally developed a severe case of "TLD ennui". WHO CARES how it all rolls out (from a public interest PoV) until it comes time to hunt down abuse. Past experience has shown that TLDs are an utterly miserable and inefficient way to bring a community together, especially in light of all the great alternatives that exist. One could easily make the case that Reddit alone can serve community-building and public accountability better than any registry. Since from the start TLDs are pay-to-play affairs they must -- even the community ones -- contribute to inequity of access to an extent not shared by other platforms. At-Large's experience with new TLDs, even supposedly-noble ones, indicate that they are without exception driven by some combination of vanity and greed. I'm very disappointed that neither ALAC nor anyone else in the ICANN bubble -- not the GAC nor the civil society rump of the GNSO -- tried to make even a feeble public-interest case against a new round. Back when I was more-deeply involved in ALAC I tried to muster support for the case against any more TLD delegations until the consequences of the last round could be properly (and independently) analyzed. The effort failed miserably, and led to my pulling away. Everyone treats a new round as a simply inevitable, whether or not anyone outside the domain cartel really wants it. Whenever I hear the term "subpro" I have to smile to myself because I read that as an abbreviation for "less-than-professional", which indeed I believe to be the case for that group when it comes to consideration of public interest. The inevitable march to new rounds, whether they are needed or not, offers a stark reminder of the utter isolation of ICANN's bubble (including ALAC) from the outside world. The intervention of the California AG on .ORG should have been a wake up call to this isolation, but it appears to have blown over. So it's back to business as usual ... until the next time the AG steps in. Jonathan was right that the AG intervention in .ORG was a dangerous precedent, but ... dangerous to who? We now know that there are limits to the world's tolerance of ICANN's perversion of multi-stakeholderism. How soon until the next time these limits are tested? Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56 On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 04:47, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> wrote:

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@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 à 07:34, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org > a écrit :

****If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff at staff@atlarge.icann.org <staff@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 <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_play...>

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=D...>

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: *staff@atlarge.icann.org* <staff@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=Dw...> Facebook: facebook.com/icann [facebook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icanna...> atlarge [facebook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icanna...> Twitter: @ [twitter.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANNAtLarg...> ICANNAtLarge [twitter.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANNAtLarg...>

<At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call[28].ics>_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@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@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@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.

Dear Evan, I hear your concern. So there are two issues at hand: Should ALAC try to stop a next round? And will it be effective in doing so? That’s a very valid question and obviously should be asked and answered here. But t is entirely separate from the question whether city (geo) applicants deserve a CPE booster. But in regard to the question whether a community applicant for a city (we have to decide whether “city” or “geo” – I assume that 90% of geos will be cities in the next round) should get a bonus in CPE or not: You mention the .amazon case. How does that impact the community priority application angle? If amazon had applied as community priority applicant then their CPE would have been immediately destroyed by the objections of the Amazon countries. You make the argument: “I've personally developed a severe case of "TLD ennui". WHO CARES how it all rolls out (from a public interest PoV)” I hear you very well. But if you read my prior message; there are people out who really do include the community and make a HUGE difference in the rollout (my posting from yesterday). That’s what a community priority application is about: You rally the community behind you – instead of simply “buy” a TLD. You might not be aware - but the result of WT5 is (and I fought like a lion against it – to no avail) that ANYBODY may apply for ANY (non-capital) city name WITHOUT the need for a “letter of non-objection” from the city Government! YOU DO NOT NEED A LETTER OF NON-OBJECTON FROM THE CITY ANYMORE (under certain circumstances). How do you achieve that: all you have to do is NOT explicitly mentioning in the application that the TLD would be “primarily used for purposes connected with the city name”. So you apply for “.frankfurt” or “.dallas” or “.shanghai” (24 Million people – 70% of countries are smaller): and you could take one of the standard “Donuts” application templates: They do not mention ANYTHING what the TLD is about. Then you do NOT need a letter of non-objection: you simply get handed over the TLD. I know: It sounds gross. But it’s the result of a very powerful “brand lobby” that has gained grip of the GNSO new gTLD process and wants to enable their brand clients that have lent their brand name from geos (and there are so many; not just amazon or patagonia). So by empowering community priority applicants you are actually empowering the city community: they won’t provide all the necessary support letters without wanting to be included in the roll-out policies. PUS: If someone applies as community priority application for a city name: they are FORCED to designate it as “city application” – hence need the letter of non-objection. If you want to empower the at Large Community then any measure that forces applicants to designate their application as “city application” would help A LOT! Thanks, Alexander From: CPWG [mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Donnerstag, 9. Juli 2020 19:38 To: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> Cc: lac-discuss-en <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>; atlasiiiparticipants@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 Hi Christopher, As Tijani said, I think everyone had their eye on what happened with .amazon when crafting this approach. However, I agree with your PoV and in fact believe that the utterly bogus "community" case for the .amazon TLD actually bolsters your case. Having said that, I've personally developed a severe case of "TLD ennui". WHO CARES how it all rolls out (from a public interest PoV) until it comes time to hunt down abuse. Past experience has shown that TLDs are an utterly miserable and inefficient way to bring a community together, especially in light of all the great alternatives that exist. One could easily make the case that Reddit alone can serve community-building and public accountability better than any registry. Since from the start TLDs are pay-to-play affairs they must -- even the community ones -- contribute to inequity of access to an extent not shared by other platforms. At-Large's experience with new TLDs, even supposedly-noble ones, indicate that they are without exception driven by some combination of vanity and greed. I'm very disappointed that neither ALAC nor anyone else in the ICANN bubble -- not the GAC nor the civil society rump of the GNSO -- tried to make even a feeble public-interest case against a new round. Back when I was more-deeply involved in ALAC I tried to muster support for the case against any more TLD delegations until the consequences of the last round could be properly (and independently) analyzed. The effort failed miserably, and led to my pulling away. Everyone treats a new round as a simply inevitable, whether or not anyone outside the domain cartel really wants it. Whenever I hear the term "subpro" I have to smile to myself because I read that as an abbreviation for "less-than-professional", which indeed I believe to be the case for that group when it comes to consideration of public interest. The inevitable march to new rounds, whether they are needed or not, offers a stark reminder of the utter isolation of ICANN's bubble (including ALAC) from the outside world. The intervention of the California AG on .ORG should have been a wake up call to this isolation, but it appears to have blown over. So it's back to business as usual ... until the next time the AG steps in. Jonathan was right that the AG intervention in .ORG was a dangerous precedent, but ... dangerous to who? We now know that there are limits to the world's tolerance of ICANN's perversion of multi-stakeholderism. How soon until the next time these limits are tested? Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56 On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 04:47, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> > wrote: 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@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@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