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 <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-08-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> and transcript here <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...> . 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 <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> . Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976