Hello Farzaneh. Thank
you for deciphering the weird posting I sent out on this. I had
trouble deciphering it myself at first. Sorry about that.
But on the subject --
Dushanbe means Monday in Tajic as well which has its origins in
ancient Persia and may or may not be related to Farsi (that I
don't know). I'm sure you know this and, yes, there are 100
million people who speak Farsi. I wish I was one of them. It is
an ancient language which, perhaps, one day might find itself on
the UNESCO intangible cultural heritage site. And maybe ICANN
would have set up a way to recognize such world treasures in the
gTLD system by that time. I should live that long!!
I am NOT speaking for governments, and am not saying governments should make the decision. I just feel that if citizens of capital cities and cities of over 1M around the world who would probably, if we could poll them, agree that large cities and capital cities, at a minimum, should receive some special attention in this debate. And so I am with the citizens, as citizens of a large cultural entity, they also should have some rights in this discussion. I don't think that is dubious or arbitrary -- or, if it was so, in the initial iteration of the decision around capital cities I don't think we should be carrying that into this discussion. I think that the idea that citizens of these entities also have rights that we should recognize in this discussion is a valid position to hold as a non-government person in a multistakeholder discussion.
Cheers
Marita
the issues that might come across as very obvious to you will create complications later on. We have given many many examples of this but I will give you another: a capital city of 800,000 people that has a generic name: Dushanbe. Dushanbe is the capital of Tajikistan. In Farsi dushanbe means Monday. There are 110 million farsi speakers around the world.
Reserving names, setting them aside for later release, giving them arbitrarily to entities, all are ex ante actions that are unjustified. It’s protectionism. It will politicize the cyber space even further and harms innovation, creativity and freedom of speech. But we have said these over and over.
In the end, it is not really a multistakeholder process when one group that actually has an advisory role can obstruct what others agree on.--
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 12:38 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Excuse me for askabout something that is probably obvious for most of you, but do you setting aside capital cities here?
_______________________________________________Marita
On 9/7/2018 12:25 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
I agree.
I think the joke which was taken seriously by ICANN was to give privileges to some entities over generic names, under dubious, arbitrary measures.
Farzaneh
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 12:14 PM Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________I join Greg and Robin in thinking that these ideas are not “jokes.” They may or may not be suitable for adoption in the long run, but they are certainly worthy of extended consideration.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 5:58 PM
To: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>
Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report
Christopher,
Not joking at all. These are all valid and rational proposals, many of which have come up before in our discussions.
Perhaps you mistakenly thought that this group was charged only with giving more preferences and privileges to “geos.” Not the case at all. The dial can move in both directions. More to the point, consensus comes from compromise — give to get, and all that. While these proposals are valid in their own right, they will also be useful in examining possible compromises.
In any case, if I’m joking, we’re all joking....
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:33 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Greg: You are joking, of course.
CW
On Sep 4, 2018, at 7:42 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
[…]
While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander:
- extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories
- replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime).
- Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision.
- Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration
- A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule.
- A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!)
There may be others, but that's a start.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi Emily,
TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism).
Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea:· Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived!
· It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later
· In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it.
Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind.
So my suggestion (yes, again!):· Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)
· X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.
I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”?
Thanks for hearing my out,
Alexander.berlin
From: Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM
To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here and transcript here.
An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3.
Kind regards,
Emily
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Date: Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi,
Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close).
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins)
2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins)
3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins)
4. AOB (5 mins)
If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards,
Emily
Emily Barabas | Policy Manager
ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Farzaneh