I have heard that in Italy a city is any grouping of people that has a cathedral and a bishop. (Maybe someone on the list can confirm this.) I just visited one (Pienza) that has only 2000 people and does have a mayor, so some form of government. So, if it is a city and does have a government but is well below the population cut off, how would the provisions below protect Pienza (or not)? Marita On 5/17/2018 1:14 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:

Susan,

Either I have not expressed myself precise enough – or I am misunderstood:

In the 2012 AGB it clearly states “city name”. I think the requirement to produce a letter of non-objection from the city’s government implies that only city’s that HAVE any form of Government are targeted by this rule. Rock doesn’t have any “Government” – it is such a small village (1,200 people) that it is governed by others. There is a reference to “city government” in Module 2, page 18 of 42, 2.2.1.4.2 in 2b – there in the reference 7 (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/evaluation-procedures-04jun12-e...): */“City governments with concerns about strings that are duplicates, nicknames or close renderings of a city name should not rely/*

*/on the evaluation process as the primary means of protecting their interests in a string. Rather, a government may elect to file a/*

*/formal objection to an application that is opposed by the relevant community, or may submit its own application for the string.”/*

This language clearly implies that “city” in respect to the support requirement is defined as a place that has its own “Government”.

I am very much in agreement with you that the 2012 AGB specification “city name” is a disaster. It’s not really defined and way too broad. By introducing a population-size cutoff we eliminate all the smallish places that nobody really would ever create a geo gTLD for anyways – so brands and generic term applications have free reign! These smaller places can still OBJECT to an application – example would be “Aspen”.

And this is precisely one of our tasks here: to unearth language and provisions of the 2012 AGB that maybe “worked” in 2012 – but likely create confusion in future rounds.

Thanks,

Alexander

*From:*Susan Payne [mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com] *Sent:* Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:41 AM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!

Well Alexander, this is a perfect example of why if you are going to agree with the wide-ranging and imprecise assertions of others then it would be well to be clear exactly what you are agreeing with.  You actually do not agree with Christopher at all –or at least in large part.

What’s called a city seems to vary greatly from country to country.  I’ve been to UK fishing villages that are bigger than “cities” in some other countries.  The AGB just refers to a “city” but without defining what that is. Not that there’s any basis at law of course for the AGB city consent requirements, just for the avoidance of doubt.

*Susan Payne*

*Head of Legal Policy***| *Valideus Ltd***

28-30 Little Russell StreetWell

London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom

E: susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>

D: +44 20 7421 8255

T: +44 20 7421 8299

M: +44 7971 661175

**

*From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alexander Schubert *Sent:* 16 May 2018 22:33 *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!

Susan,

Your comment is very valuable:

We HAVE to prevent that places like “rock” have veto rights over brand or generic term based gTLDs! The “Rock” (in Cornwall) you mentioned is a “fishing village” – and as such DOESN’T require any letter of non-objection per the 2012 AGB at all! But the point itself is well taken:

We need to qualify a threshold for protection – most likely by quantifying the population! If we have a 10,000 (or 50,000) inhabitant cut-off: the overlay between those sizeable cities and brands and or generic terms is MINIMAL!

Thanks,

Alexander

*From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Susan Payne *Sent:* Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:23 AM *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>

Agreed Greg

Christopher, you appear to be suggesting that the term “rock” since it happens to be the name of at least one small town in Cornwall, England, and possibly elsewhere, could not be used as a TLD by  geologists, landscapers, musicians, etc etc.  On what possible legal, or indeed policy, basis?  So no, you may not take that as agreed.

*Susan Payne*

*Head of Legal Policy***| *Valideus Ltd***

28-30 Little Russell Street

London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom

E: susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>

D: +44 20 7421 8255

T: +44 20 7421 8299

M: +44 7971 661175

**

*From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* 16 May 2018 21:46 *To:* lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>

Christopher wrote:

3.  The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?)

There has been significant— repeated — objection to that proposition, so no, you may not take it that it is agreed in WT5.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that.

Greg

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:39 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:

Good afternoon:

With respect, this is the first time that I have perceived that in 2012, Geo-Names Review was different from the Geo-Names Panel. I shall try and get my head around that!

Meanwhile, it would clearly be an advantage to have a review function available for ALL Geo-related applications, up front, BEFORE applicants and the mechanisms spend time and money on the approval procedures.

I have already posted several comments that would significantly reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications. /Pour Memoire:/

1.  The application should be from an entity within the jurisdiction of the geo-name in question, and the proposed TLD Registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction. There should not be any incorporations in third country tax havens.

2.  There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may be applied for by any one entity.

3.  The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?)

Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and during implementation.

Regards

CW

PS:  Since all applications for Geo-Names should have received non-objection letters from the appropriate authorities, I might imagine that the scope for String Contention would be considerably reduced if not eliminated.

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Thank you. I would support that idea. There must be thousands of examples out there of such anomolies. Marita On 5/17/2018 7:39 AM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:

An Advisory Board with independent experts, as suggested yesterday , could help in such hard cases and inform on the specificities. Eg in Switzerland traditionally cities have been those with more than 10K inhabitants, but there are additional criteria that are considered (eg having traditional „city rights“).

With big cities normally everything will be quickly clear. But with such tinier places the Advisory Panel could not only help in determining whether it is a city, but also in informing on the relevant public authority etc.

best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> Datum: 17. Mai 2018 um 07:28:52 MESZ An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!

I have heard that in Italy a city is any grouping of people that has a cathedral and a bishop. (Maybe someone on the list can confirm this.) I just visited one (Pienza) that has only 2000 people and does have a mayor, so some form of government. So, if it is a city and does have a government but is well below the population cut off, how would the provisions below protect Pienza (or not)?

Marita

On 5/17/2018 1:14 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Susan,

Either I have not expressed myself precise enough – or I am misunderstood:

In the 2012 AGB it clearly states “city name”. I think the requirement to produce a letter of non-objection from the city’s government implies that only city’s that HAVE any form of Government are targeted by this rule. Rock doesn’t have any “Government” – it is such a small village (1,200 people) that it is governed by others. There is a reference to “city government” in Module 2, page 18 of 42, 2.2.1.4.2 in 2b – there in the reference 7 (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/evaluation-procedures-04jun12-e...): “City governments with concerns about strings that are duplicates, nicknames or close renderings of a city name should not rely on the evaluation process as the primary means of protecting their interests in a string. Rather, a government may elect to file a formal objection to an application that is opposed by the relevant community, or may submit its own application for the string.”

This language clearly implies that “city” in respect to the support requirement is defined as a place that has its own “Government”.

I am very much in agreement with you that the 2012 AGB specification “city name” is a disaster. It’s not really defined and way too broad. By introducing a population-size cutoff we eliminate all the smallish places that nobody really would ever create a geo gTLD for anyways – so brands and generic term applications have free reign! These smaller places can still OBJECT to an application – example would be “Aspen”.

And this is precisely one of our tasks here: to unearth language and provisions of the 2012 AGB that maybe “worked” in 2012 – but likely create confusion in future rounds.

Thanks,

Alexander

From: Susan Payne [mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:41 AM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!

Well Alexander, this is a perfect example of why if you are going to agree with the wide-ranging and imprecise assertions of others then it would be well to be clear exactly what you are agreeing with. You actually do not agree with Christopher at all –or at least in large part.

What’s called a city seems to vary greatly from country to country. I’ve been to UK fishing villages that are bigger than “cities” in some other countries. The AGB just refers to a “city” but without defining what that is. Not that there’s any basis at law of course for the AGB city consent requirements, just for the avoidance of doubt.

Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell StreetWell London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom

E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: 16 May 2018 22:33 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!

Susan,

Your comment is very valuable:

We HAVE to prevent that places like “rock” have veto rights over brand or generic term based gTLDs! The “Rock” (in Cornwall) you mentioned is a “fishing village” – and as such DOESN’T require any letter of non-objection per the 2012 AGB at all! But the point itself is well taken:

We need to qualify a threshold for protection – most likely by quantifying the population! If we have a 10,000 (or 50,000) inhabitant cut-off: the overlay between those sizeable cities and brands and or generic terms is MINIMAL!

Thanks,

Alexander

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:23 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>

Agreed Greg Christopher, you appear to be suggesting that the term “rock” since it happens to be the name of at least one small town in Cornwall, England, and possibly elsewhere, could not be used as a TLD by geologists, landscapers, musicians, etc etc. On what possible legal, or indeed policy, basis? So no, you may not take that as agreed.

Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom

E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: 16 May 2018 21:46 To: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>

Christopher wrote:

3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) There has been significant— repeated — objection to that proposition, so no, you may not take it that it is agreed in WT5.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that.

Greg

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:39 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:

Good afternoon:

With respect, this is the first time that I have perceived that in 2012, Geo-Names Review was different from the Geo-Names Panel. I shall try and get my head around that!

Meanwhile, it would clearly be an advantage to have a review function available for ALL Geo-related applications, up front, BEFORE applicants and the mechanisms spend time and money on the approval procedures.

I have already posted several comments that would significantly reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications. Pour Memoire:

1. The application should be from an entity within the jurisdiction of the geo-name in question, and the proposed TLD Registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction. There should not be any incorporations in third country tax havens.

2. There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may be applied for by any one entity.

3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?)

Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and during implementation.

Regards

CW

PS: Since all applications for Geo-Names should have received non-objection letters from the appropriate authorities, I might imagine that the scope for String Contention would be considerably reduced if not eliminated.

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Hello Alexander Your assertion about “nobody is going to apply for .pienza anyways — too small” is precisely the kind of subjective judgment we must not make in this policy development process. Any applicant that meets the criteria in the application process should be able to apply and be evaluated fairly and objectively. And the second problem is with your argument about “sizeable” cities. It is flawed to suggest that we can somehow have a cut off on size for a geographic entity especially when geographic entities may not just be cities. Should we limit the length of rivers; the height of mountains; the areas of agricultural production for cheese? We are not only discussing top level domains that may reflect city entities and we need to think carefully about what we do about other geographic terms, if any. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@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 17 May 2018, at 7:16 pm, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Marita, This is part of the trade-off: Only applications for strings identical to SIZEABLE cities have to produce Government support – in exchange the “non-geo use” clause is eliminated! Obviously if somebody wanted to apply for .pienza to enable that 2,000 people community to identify themselves on the Internet: go for it. But why having extra “protections” for such a small geo-entity? Nobody is going to apply for .pienza anyways – too small. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 8:28 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! I have heard that in Italy a city is any grouping of people that has a cathedral and a bishop. (Maybe someone on the list can confirm this.) I just visited one (Pienza) that has only 2000 people and does have a mayor, so some form of government. So, if it is a city and does have a government but is well below the population cut off, how would the provisions below protect Pienza (or not)? Marita On 5/17/2018 1:14 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Susan, Either I have not expressed myself precise enough – or I am misunderstood: In the 2012 AGB it clearly states “city name”. I think the requirement to produce a letter of non-objection from the city’s government implies that only city’s that HAVE any form of Government are targeted by this rule. Rock doesn’t have any “Government” – it is such a small village (1,200 people) that it is governed by others. There is a reference to “city government” in Module 2, page 18 of 42, 2.2.1.4.2 in 2b – there in the reference 7 (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/evaluation-procedures-04jun12-e...): “City governments with concerns about strings that are duplicates, nicknames or close renderings of a city name should not rely on the evaluation process as the primary means of protecting their interests in a string. Rather, a government may elect to file a formal objection to an application that is opposed by the relevant community, or may submit its own application for the string.” This language clearly implies that “city” in respect to the support requirement is defined as a place that has its own “Government”. I am very much in agreement with you that the 2012 AGB specification “city name” is a disaster. It’s not really defined and way too broad. By introducing a population-size cutoff we eliminate all the smallish places that nobody really would ever create a geo gTLD for anyways – so brands and generic term applications have free reign! These smaller places can still OBJECT to an application – example would be “Aspen”. And this is precisely one of our tasks here: to unearth language and provisions of the 2012 AGB that maybe “worked” in 2012 – but likely create confusion in future rounds. Thanks, Alexander From: Susan Payne [mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:41 AM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! Well Alexander, this is a perfect example of why if you are going to agree with the wide-ranging and imprecise assertions of others then it would be well to be clear exactly what you are agreeing with. You actually do not agree with Christopher at all –or at least in large part. What’s called a city seems to vary greatly from country to country. I’ve been to UK fishing villages that are bigger than “cities” in some other countries. The AGB just refers to a “city” but without defining what that is. Not that there’s any basis at law of course for the AGB city consent requirements, just for the avoidance of doubt. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell StreetWell London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: 16 May 2018 22:33 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! Susan, Your comment is very valuable: We HAVE to prevent that places like “rock” have veto rights over brand or generic term based gTLDs! The “Rock” (in Cornwall) you mentioned is a “fishing village” – and as such DOESN’T require any letter of non-objection per the 2012 AGB at all! But the point itself is well taken: We need to qualify a threshold for protection – most likely by quantifying the population! If we have a 10,000 (or 50,000) inhabitant cut-off: the overlay between those sizeable cities and brands and or generic terms is MINIMAL! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:23 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Agreed Greg Christopher, you appear to be suggesting that the term “rock” since it happens to be the name of at least one small town in Cornwall, England, and possibly elsewhere, could not be used as a TLD by geologists, landscapers, musicians, etc etc. On what possible legal, or indeed policy, basis? So no, you may not take that as agreed. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: 16 May 2018 21:46 To: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Christopher wrote: 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) There has been significant— repeated — objection to that proposition, so no, you may not take it that it is agreed in WT5. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that. Greg On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:39 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Good afternoon: With respect, this is the first time that I have perceived that in 2012, Geo-Names Review was different from the Geo-Names Panel. I shall try and get my head around that! Meanwhile, it would clearly be an advantage to have a review function available for ALL Geo-related applications, up front, BEFORE applicants and the mechanisms spend time and money on the approval procedures. I have already posted several comments that would significantly reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications. Pour Memoire: 1. The application should be from an entity within the jurisdiction of the geo-name in question, and the proposed TLD Registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction. There should not be any incorporations in third country tax havens. 2. There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may be applied for by any one entity. 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and during implementation. Regards CW PS: Since all applications for Geo-Names should have received non-objection letters from the appropriate authorities, I might imagine that the scope for String Contention would be considerably reduced if not eliminated. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

We also need to factor in the point that the size of cities in not static. There are periods, like now, when populations are on the move -- for many different reasons. A tiered system for dealing with cities of various sizes still makes sense to me. Marita On 5/18/2018 6:27 AM, Liz Williams wrote:

Hello Alexander

Your assertion about “nobody is going to apply for .pienza anyways — too small” is precisely the kind of subjective judgment we must not make in this policy development process.  Any applicant that meets the criteria in the application process should be able to apply and be evaluated fairly and objectively.

And the second problem is with your argument about “sizeable” cities. It is flawed to suggest that we can somehow have a cut off on size for a geographic entity especially when geographic entities may not just be cities.  Should we limit the length of rivers; the height of mountains; the areas of agricultural production for cheese?  We are not only discussing top level domains that may reflect city entities and we need to think carefully about what we do about other geographic terms, if any.

Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@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 17 May 2018, at 7:16 pm, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:

Marita, This is part of the trade-off:

Only applications for strings identical to SIZEABLE cities have to produce Government support – in exchange the “non-geo use” clause is eliminated!

Obviously if somebody wanted to apply for .pienza to enable that 2,000 people community to identify themselves on the Internet: go for it. But why having extra “protections” for such a small geo-entity? Nobody is going to apply for .pienza anyways – too small.

Thanks,

Alexander *From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org]*On Behalf Of*Marita Moll *Sent:*Thursday, May 17, 2018 8:28 AM *To:*gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!

 I have heard that in Italy a city is any grouping of people that has a cathedral and a bishop. (Maybe someone on the list can confirm this.) I just visited one (Pienza) that has only 2000 people and does have a mayor, so some form of government. So, if it is a city and does have a government but is well below the population cut off, how would the provisions below protect Pienza (or not)?

Marita

On 5/17/2018 1:14 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:

...

Susan, Either I have not expressed myself precise enough – or I am misunderstood:

In the 2012 AGB it clearly states “city name”. I think the requirement to produce a letter of non-objection from the city’s government implies that only city’s that HAVE any form of Government are targeted by this rule. Rock doesn’t have any “Government” – it is such a small village (1,200 people) that it is governed by others. There is a reference to “city government” in Module 2, page 18 of 42, 2.2.1.4.2 in 2b – there in the reference 7 (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/evaluation-procedures-04jun12-e...): */“City governments with concerns about strings that are duplicates, nicknames or close renderings of a city name should not rely/* */on the evaluation process as the primary means of protecting their interests in a string. Rather, a government may elect to file a/* */formal objection to an application that is opposed by the relevant community, or may submit its own application for the string.”/*

This language clearly implies that “city” in respect to the support requirement is defined as a place that has its own “Government”.

I am very much in agreement with you that the 2012 AGB specification “city name” is a disaster. It’s not really defined and way too broad. By introducing a population-size cutoff we eliminate all the smallish places that nobody really would ever create a geo gTLD for anyways – so brands and generic term applications have free reign! These smaller places can still OBJECT to an application – example would be “Aspen”.

And this is precisely one of our tasks here: to unearth language and provisions of the 2012 AGB that maybe “worked” in 2012 – but likely create confusion in future rounds.

Thanks,

Alexander *From:*Susan Payne [mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com] *Sent:*Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:41 AM *To:*alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>;gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:*RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! Well Alexander, this is a perfect example of why if you are going to agree with the wide-ranging and imprecise assertions of others then it would be well to be clear exactly what you are agreeing with.  You actually do not agree with Christopher at all –or at least in large part. What’s called a city seems to vary greatly from country to country.  I’ve been to UK fishing villages that are bigger than “cities” in some other countries.  The AGB just refers to a “city” but without defining what that is.  Not that there’s any basis at law of course for the AGB city consent requirements, just for the avoidance of doubt. *Susan Payne* *Head of Legal Policy***|*Valideus Ltd* 28-30 Little Russell StreetWell London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E:susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 ** *From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org]*On Behalf Of*Alexander Schubert *Sent:*16 May 2018 22:33 *To:*gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:*[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! Susan, Your comment is very valuable:

We HAVE to prevent that places like “rock” have veto rights over brand or generic term based gTLDs! The “Rock” (in Cornwall) you mentioned is a “fishing village” – and as such DOESN’T require any letter of non-objection per the 2012 AGB at all! But the point itself is well taken:

We need to qualify a threshold for protection – most likely by quantifying the population! If we have a 10,000 (or 50,000) inhabitant cut-off: the overlay between those sizeable cities and brands and or generic terms is MINIMAL!

Thanks,

Alexander

*From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org]*On Behalf Of*Susan Payne *Sent:*Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:23 AM *To:*Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>;lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> *Cc:*gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>

Agreed Greg Christopher, you appear to be suggesting that the term “rock” since it happens to be the name of at least one small town in Cornwall, England, and possibly elsewhere, could not be used as a TLD by  geologists, landscapers, musicians, etc etc.  On what possible legal, or indeed policy, basis?  So no, you may not take that as agreed. *Susan Payne* *Head of Legal Policy***|*Valideus Ltd* 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E:susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 **

*From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org]*On Behalf Of*Greg Shatan *Sent:*16 May 2018 21:46 *To:*lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> *Cc:*gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>

Christopher wrote:

3.  The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?)

There has been significant— repeated — objection to that proposition, so no, you may not take it that it is agreed in WT5. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that. Greg On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:39 PMlists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:

...

Good afternoon:

With respect, this is the first time that I have perceived that in 2012, Geo-Names Review was different from the Geo-Names Panel. I shall try and get my head around that!

Meanwhile, it would clearly be an advantage to have a review function available for ALL Geo-related applications, up front, BEFORE applicants and the mechanisms spend time and money on the approval procedures.

I have already posted several comments that would significantly reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications./Pour Memoire:/

1.  The application should be from an entity within the jurisdiction of the geo-name in question, and the proposed TLD Registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction. There should not be any incorporations in third country tax havens.

2.  There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may be applied for by any one entity.

3.  The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?)

Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and during implementation.

Regards

CW

PS:  Since all applications for Geo-Names should have received non-objection letters from the appropriate authorities, I might imagine that the scope for String Contention would be considerably reduced if not eliminated.

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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

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 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2018 11:50 AM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! God morning: A tiered system would need a revision procedure and a repository of exceptions. There are some quite small places of significance for tourism, religious, cultural or historical reasons. In this context, I maintain my position against multiple Geo-TLDs with the same entity, and for incorporation within the jurisdiction of the Name in question. And my warning about areas of contested sovereignty. CW El 20 de mayo de 2018 a las 8:09 Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> > escribió: We also need to factor in the point that the size of cities in not static. There are periods, like now, when populations are on the move -- for many different reasons. A tiered system for dealing with cities of various sizes still makes sense to me. Marita On 5/18/2018 6:27 AM, Liz Williams wrote: Hello Alexander Your assertion about “nobody is going to apply for .pienza anyways — too small” is precisely the kind of subjective judgment we must not make in this policy development process. Any applicant that meets the criteria in the application process should be able to apply and be evaluated fairly and objectively. And the second problem is with your argument about “sizeable” cities. It is flawed to suggest that we can somehow have a cut off on size for a geographic entity especially when geographic entities may not just be cities. Should we limit the length of rivers; the height of mountains; the areas of agricultural production for cheese? We are not only discussing top level domains that may reflect city entities and we need to think carefully about what we do about other geographic terms, if any. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@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 17 May 2018, at 7:16 pm, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Marita, This is part of the trade-off: Only applications for strings identical to SIZEABLE cities have to produce Government support – in exchange the “non-geo use” clause is eliminated! Obviously if somebody wanted to apply for .pienza to enable that 2,000 people community to identify themselves on the Internet: go for it. But why having extra “protections” for such a small geo-entity? Nobody is going to apply for .pienza anyways – too small. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 8:28 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! I have heard that in Italy a city is any grouping of people that has a cathedral and a bishop. (Maybe someone on the list can confirm this.) I just visited one (Pienza) that has only 2000 people and does have a mayor, so some form of government. So, if it is a city and does have a government but is well below the population cut off, how would the provisions below protect Pienza (or not)? Marita On 5/17/2018 1:14 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Susan, Either I have not expressed myself precise enough – or I am misunderstood: In the 2012 AGB it clearly states “city name”. I think the requirement to produce a letter of non-objection from the city’s government implies that only city’s that HAVE any form of Government are targeted by this rule. Rock doesn’t have any “Government” – it is such a small village (1,200 people) that it is governed by others. There is a reference to “city government” in Module 2, page 18 of 42, 2.2.1.4.2 in 2b – there in the reference 7 ( <https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/evaluation-procedures-04jun12-e...> https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/evaluation-procedures-04jun12-e...): “City governments with concerns about strings that are duplicates, nicknames or close renderings of a city name should not rely on the evaluation process as the primary means of protecting their interests in a string. Rather, a government may elect to file a formal objection to an application that is opposed by the relevant community, or may submit its own application for the string.” This language clearly implies that “city” in respect to the support requirement is defined as a place that has its own “Government”. I am very much in agreement with you that the 2012 AGB specification “city name” is a disaster. It’s not really defined and way too broad. By introducing a population-size cutoff we eliminate all the smallish places that nobody really would ever create a geo gTLD for anyways – so brands and generic term applications have free reign! These smaller places can still OBJECT to an application – example would be “Aspen”. And this is precisely one of our tasks here: to unearth language and provisions of the 2012 AGB that maybe “worked” in 2012 – but likely create confusion in future rounds. Thanks, Alexander From: Susan Payne [ <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:41 AM To: <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> alexander@schubert.berlin; <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! Well Alexander, this is a perfect example of why if you are going to agree with the wide-ranging and imprecise assertions of others then it would be well to be clear exactly what you are agreeing with. You actually do not agree with Christopher at all –or at least in large part. What’s called a city seems to vary greatly from country to country. I’ve been to UK fishing villages that are bigger than “cities” in some other countries. The AGB just refers to a “city” but without defining what that is. Not that there’s any basis at law of course for the AGB city consent requirements, just for the avoidance of doubt. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell StreetWell London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [ <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: 16 May 2018 22:33 To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! Susan, Your comment is very valuable: We HAVE to prevent that places like “rock” have veto rights over brand or generic term based gTLDs! The “Rock” (in Cornwall) you mentioned is a “fishing village” – and as such DOESN’T require any letter of non-objection per the 2012 AGB at all! But the point itself is well taken: We need to qualify a threshold for protection – most likely by quantifying the population! If we have a 10,000 (or 50,000) inhabitant cut-off: the overlay between those sizeable cities and brands and or generic terms is MINIMAL! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [ <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:23 AM To: Greg Shatan < <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Agreed Greg Christopher, you appear to be suggesting that the term “rock” since it happens to be the name of at least one small town in Cornwall, England, and possibly elsewhere, could not be used as a TLD by geologists, landscapers, musicians, etc etc. On what possible legal, or indeed policy, basis? So no, you may not take that as agreed. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [ <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: 16 May 2018 21:46 To: <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Christopher wrote: 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) There has been significant— repeated — objection to that proposition, so no, you may not take it that it is agreed in WT5. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that. Greg On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:39 PM <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.euWilkinson < <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Good afternoon: With respect, this is the first time that I have perceived that in 2012, Geo-Names Review was different from the Geo-Names Panel. I shall try and get my head around that! Meanwhile, it would clearly be an advantage to have a review function available for ALL Geo-related applications, up front, BEFORE applicants and the mechanisms spend time and money on the approval procedures. I have already posted several comments that would significantly reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications. Pour Memoire: 1. The application should be from an entity within the jurisdiction of the geo-name in question, and the proposed TLD Registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction. There should not be any incorporations in third country tax havens. 2. There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may be applied for by any one entity. 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and during implementation. Regards CW PS: Since all applications for Geo-Names should have received non-objection letters from the appropriate authorities, I might imagine that the scope for String Contention would be considerably reduced if not eliminated. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

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 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 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@auda.org.au] Sent: Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 06:39 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@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@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@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 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2018 11:50 AM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> >; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! God morning: A tiered system would need a revision procedure and a repository of exceptions. There are some quite small places of significance for tourism, religious, cultural or historical reasons. In this context, I maintain my position against multiple Geo-TLDs with the same entity, and for incorporation within the jurisdiction of the Name in question. And my warning about areas of contested sovereignty. CW El 20 de mayo de 2018 a las 8:09 Marita Moll < <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> mmoll@ca.inter.net> escribió: We also need to factor in the point that the size of cities in not static. There are periods, like now, when populations are on the move -- for many different reasons. A tiered system for dealing with cities of various sizes still makes sense to me. Marita On 5/18/2018 6:27 AM, Liz Williams wrote: Hello Alexander Your assertion about “nobody is going to apply for .pienza anyways — too small” is precisely the kind of subjective judgment we must not make in this policy development process. Any applicant that meets the criteria in the application process should be able to apply and be evaluated fairly and objectively. And the second problem is with your argument about “sizeable” cities. It is flawed to suggest that we can somehow have a cut off on size for a geographic entity especially when geographic entities may not just be cities. Should we limit the length of rivers; the height of mountains; the areas of agricultural production for cheese? We are not only discussing top level domains that may reflect city entities and we need to think carefully about what we do about other geographic terms, if any. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> liz.williams@auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> 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 17 May 2018, at 7:16 pm, Alexander Schubert < <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: Marita, This is part of the trade-off: Only applications for strings identical to SIZEABLE cities have to produce Government support – in exchange the “non-geo use” clause is eliminated! Obviously if somebody wanted to apply for .pienza to enable that 2,000 people community to identify themselves on the Internet: go for it. But why having extra “protections” for such a small geo-entity? Nobody is going to apply for .pienza anyways – too small. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [ <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 8:28 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! I have heard that in Italy a city is any grouping of people that has a cathedral and a bishop. (Maybe someone on the list can confirm this.) I just visited one (Pienza) that has only 2000 people and does have a mayor, so some form of government. So, if it is a city and does have a government but is well below the population cut off, how would the provisions below protect Pienza (or not)? Marita On 5/17/2018 1:14 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Susan, Either I have not expressed myself precise enough – or I am misunderstood: In the 2012 AGB it clearly states “city name”. I think the requirement to produce a letter of non-objection from the city’s government implies that only city’s that HAVE any form of Government are targeted by this rule. Rock doesn’t have any “Government” – it is such a small village (1,200 people) that it is governed by others. There is a reference to “city government” in Module 2, page 18 of 42, 2.2.1.4.2 in 2b – there in the reference 7 ( <https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/evaluation-procedures-04jun12-e...> https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/evaluation-procedures-04jun12-e...): “City governments with concerns about strings that are duplicates, nicknames or close renderings of a city name should not rely on the evaluation process as the primary means of protecting their interests in a string. Rather, a government may elect to file a formal objection to an application that is opposed by the relevant community, or may submit its own application for the string.” This language clearly implies that “city” in respect to the support requirement is defined as a place that has its own “Government”. I am very much in agreement with you that the 2012 AGB specification “city name” is a disaster. It’s not really defined and way too broad. By introducing a population-size cutoff we eliminate all the smallish places that nobody really would ever create a geo gTLD for anyways – so brands and generic term applications have free reign! These smaller places can still OBJECT to an application – example would be “Aspen”. And this is precisely one of our tasks here: to unearth language and provisions of the 2012 AGB that maybe “worked” in 2012 – but likely create confusion in future rounds. Thanks, Alexander From: Susan Payne [ <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:41 AM To: <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> alexander@schubert.berlin; <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! Well Alexander, this is a perfect example of why if you are going to agree with the wide-ranging and imprecise assertions of others then it would be well to be clear exactly what you are agreeing with. You actually do not agree with Christopher at all –or at least in large part. What’s called a city seems to vary greatly from country to country. I’ve been to UK fishing villages that are bigger than “cities” in some other countries. The AGB just refers to a “city” but without defining what that is. Not that there’s any basis at law of course for the AGB city consent requirements, just for the avoidance of doubt. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell StreetWell London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [ <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: 16 May 2018 22:33 To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! Susan, Your comment is very valuable: We HAVE to prevent that places like “rock” have veto rights over brand or generic term based gTLDs! The “Rock” (in Cornwall) you mentioned is a “fishing village” – and as such DOESN’T require any letter of non-objection per the 2012 AGB at all! But the point itself is well taken: We need to qualify a threshold for protection – most likely by quantifying the population! If we have a 10,000 (or 50,000) inhabitant cut-off: the overlay between those sizeable cities and brands and or generic terms is MINIMAL! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [ <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:23 AM To: Greg Shatan < <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Agreed Greg Christopher, you appear to be suggesting that the term “rock” since it happens to be the name of at least one small town in Cornwall, England, and possibly elsewhere, could not be used as a TLD by geologists, landscapers, musicians, etc etc. On what possible legal, or indeed policy, basis? So no, you may not take that as agreed. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [ <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: 16 May 2018 21:46 To: <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Christopher wrote: 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) There has been significant— repeated — objection to that proposition, so no, you may not take it that it is agreed in WT5. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that. Greg On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:39 PM <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.euWilkinson < <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Good afternoon: With respect, this is the first time that I have perceived that in 2012, Geo-Names Review was different from the Geo-Names Panel. I shall try and get my head around that! Meanwhile, it would clearly be an advantage to have a review function available for ALL Geo-related applications, up front, BEFORE applicants and the mechanisms spend time and money on the approval procedures. I have already posted several comments that would significantly reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications. Pour Memoire: 1. The application should be from an entity within the jurisdiction of the geo-name in question, and the proposed TLD Registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction. There should not be any incorporations in third country tax havens. 2. There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may be applied for by any one entity. 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and during implementation. Regards CW PS: Since all applications for Geo-Names should have received non-objection letters from the appropriate authorities, I might imagine that the scope for String Contention would be considerably reduced if not eliminated. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Hello everyone Do take a look at this article by Maria Farrell recently published on Circle ID. It addresses, from quite a different perspective, some of the points raised here. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20180517_geotlds_small_but_perfectly_formed/ Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@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 23 May 2018, at 1:34 am, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> 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@auda.org.au] Sent: Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 06:39 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@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@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@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 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2018 11:50 AM To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! God morning: A tiered system would need a revision procedure and a repository of exceptions. There are some quite small places of significance for tourism, religious, cultural or historical reasons. In this context, I maintain my position against multiple Geo-TLDs with the same entity, and for incorporation within the jurisdiction of the Name in question. And my warning about areas of contested sovereignty. CW El 20 de mayo de 2018 a las 8:09 Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> escribió: We also need to factor in the point that the size of cities in not static. There are periods, like now, when populations are on the move -- for many different reasons. A tiered system for dealing with cities of various sizes still makes sense to me. Marita On 5/18/2018 6:27 AM, Liz Williams wrote: Hello Alexander Your assertion about “nobody is going to apply for .pienza anyways — too small” is precisely the kind of subjective judgment we must not make in this policy development process. Any applicant that meets the criteria in the application process should be able to apply and be evaluated fairly and objectively. And the second problem is with your argument about “sizeable” cities. It is flawed to suggest that we can somehow have a cut off on size for a geographic entity especially when geographic entities may not just be cities. Should we limit the length of rivers; the height of mountains; the areas of agricultural production for cheese? We are not only discussing top level domains that may reflect city entities and we need to think carefully about what we do about other geographic terms, if any. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@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 17 May 2018, at 7:16 pm, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Marita, This is part of the trade-off: Only applications for strings identical to SIZEABLE cities have to produce Government support – in exchange the “non-geo use” clause is eliminated! Obviously if somebody wanted to apply for .pienza to enable that 2,000 people community to identify themselves on the Internet: go for it. But why having extra “protections” for such a small geo-entity? Nobody is going to apply for .pienza anyways – too small. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 8:28 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! I have heard that in Italy a city is any grouping of people that has a cathedral and a bishop. (Maybe someone on the list can confirm this.) I just visited one (Pienza) that has only 2000 people and does have a mayor, so some form of government. So, if it is a city and does have a government but is well below the population cut off, how would the provisions below protect Pienza (or not)? Marita On 5/17/2018 1:14 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Susan, Either I have not expressed myself precise enough – or I am misunderstood: In the 2012 AGB it clearly states “city name”. I think the requirement to produce a letter of non-objection from the city’s government implies that only city’s that HAVE any form of Government are targeted by this rule. Rock doesn’t have any “Government” – it is such a small village (1,200 people) that it is governed by others. There is a reference to “city government” in Module 2, page 18 of 42, 2.2.1.4.2 in 2b – there in the reference 7 (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/evaluation-procedures-04jun12-e...): “City governments with concerns about strings that are duplicates, nicknames or close renderings of a city name should not rely on the evaluation process as the primary means of protecting their interests in a string. Rather, a government may elect to file a formal objection to an application that is opposed by the relevant community, or may submit its own application for the string.” This language clearly implies that “city” in respect to the support requirement is defined as a place that has its own “Government”. I am very much in agreement with you that the 2012 AGB specification “city name” is a disaster. It’s not really defined and way too broad. By introducing a population-size cutoff we eliminate all the smallish places that nobody really would ever create a geo gTLD for anyways – so brands and generic term applications have free reign! These smaller places can still OBJECT to an application – example would be “Aspen”. And this is precisely one of our tasks here: to unearth language and provisions of the 2012 AGB that maybe “worked” in 2012 – but likely create confusion in future rounds. Thanks, Alexander From: Susan Payne [mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:41 AM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! Well Alexander, this is a perfect example of why if you are going to agree with the wide-ranging and imprecise assertions of others then it would be well to be clear exactly what you are agreeing with. You actually do not agree with Christopher at all –or at least in large part. What’s called a city seems to vary greatly from country to country. I’ve been to UK fishing villages that are bigger than “cities” in some other countries. The AGB just refers to a “city” but without defining what that is. Not that there’s any basis at law of course for the AGB city consent requirements, just for the avoidance of doubt. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell StreetWell London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: 16 May 2018 22:33 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! Susan, Your comment is very valuable: We HAVE to prevent that places like “rock” have veto rights over brand or generic term based gTLDs! The “Rock” (in Cornwall) you mentioned is a “fishing village” – and as such DOESN’T require any letter of non-objection per the 2012 AGB at all! But the point itself is well taken: We need to qualify a threshold for protection – most likely by quantifying the population! If we have a 10,000 (or 50,000) inhabitant cut-off: the overlay between those sizeable cities and brands and or generic terms is MINIMAL! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:23 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Agreed Greg Christopher, you appear to be suggesting that the term “rock” since it happens to be the name of at least one small town in Cornwall, England, and possibly elsewhere, could not be used as a TLD by geologists, landscapers, musicians, etc etc. On what possible legal, or indeed policy, basis? So no, you may not take that as agreed. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: 16 May 2018 21:46 To: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Christopher wrote: 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) There has been significant— repeated — objection to that proposition, so no, you may not take it that it is agreed in WT5. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that. Greg On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:39 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Good afternoon: With respect, this is the first time that I have perceived that in 2012, Geo-Names Review was different from the Geo-Names Panel. I shall try and get my head around that! Meanwhile, it would clearly be an advantage to have a review function available for ALL Geo-related applications, up front, BEFORE applicants and the mechanisms spend time and money on the approval procedures. I have already posted several comments that would significantly reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications. Pour Memoire: 1. The application should be from an entity within the jurisdiction of the geo-name in question, and the proposed TLD Registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction. There should not be any incorporations in third country tax havens. 2. There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may be applied for by any one entity. 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and during implementation. Regards CW PS: Since all applications for Geo-Names should have received non-objection letters from the appropriate authorities, I might imagine that the scope for String Contention would be considerably reduced if not eliminated. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

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@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 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 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@auda.org.au <liz.williams@auda.org.au>] *Sent:* Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 06:39 *To:* Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@auda.org.au 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@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

*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of * lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson *Sent:* Sunday, May 20, 2018 11:50 AM *To:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!

God morning:

A tiered system would need a revision procedure and a repository of exceptions. There are some quite small places of significance for tourism, religious, cultural or historical reasons.

In this context, I maintain my position against multiple Geo-TLDs with the same entity, and for incorporation within the jurisdiction of the Name in question. And my warning about areas of contested sovereignty.

CW

El 20 de mayo de 2018 a las 8:09 Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> escribió:

We also need to factor in the point that the size of cities in not static. There are periods, like now, when populations are on the move -- for many different reasons. A tiered system for dealing with cities of various sizes still makes sense to me.

Marita

On 5/18/2018 6:27 AM, Liz Williams wrote:

Hello Alexander

Your assertion about “nobody is going to apply for .pienza anyways — too small” is precisely the kind of subjective judgment we must not make in this policy development process. Any applicant that meets the criteria in the application process should be able to apply and be evaluated fairly and objectively.

And the second problem is with your argument about “sizeable” cities. It is flawed to suggest that we can somehow have a cut off on size for a geographic entity especially when geographic entities may not just be cities. Should we limit the length of rivers; the height of mountains; the areas of agricultural production for cheese? We are not only discussing top level domains that may reflect city entities and we need to think carefully about what we do about other geographic terms, if any.

Liz

…. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au 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 17 May 2018, at 7:16 pm, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:

Marita,

This is part of the trade-off:

Only applications for strings identical to SIZEABLE cities have to produce Government support – in exchange the “non-geo use” clause is eliminated!

Obviously if somebody wanted to apply for .pienza to enable that 2,000 people community to identify themselves on the Internet: go for it. But why having extra “protections” for such a small geo-entity? Nobody is going to apply for .pienza anyways – too small.

Thanks,

Alexander

*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of* Marita Moll *Sent:* Thursday, May 17, 2018 8:28 AM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!

I have heard that in Italy a city is any grouping of people that has a cathedral and a bishop. (Maybe someone on the list can confirm this.) I just visited one (Pienza) that has only 2000 people and does have a mayor, so some form of government. So, if it is a city and does have a government but is well below the population cut off, how would the provisions below protect Pienza (or not)?

Marita

On 5/17/2018 1:14 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:

Susan,

Either I have not expressed myself precise enough – or I am misunderstood:

In the 2012 AGB it clearly states “city name”. I think the requirement to produce a letter of non-objection from the city’s government implies that only city’s that HAVE any form of Government are targeted by this rule. Rock doesn’t have any “Government” – it is such a small village (1,200 people) that it is governed by others. There is a reference to “city government” in Module 2, page 18 of 42, 2.2.1.4.2 in 2b – there in the reference 7 ( https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/evaluation-procedures-04jun12-e... ): *“City governments with concerns about strings that are duplicates, nicknames or close renderings of a city name should not rely*

*on the evaluation process as the primary means of protecting their interests in a string. Rather, a government may elect to file a*

*formal objection to an application that is opposed by the relevant community, or may submit its own application for the string.”*

This language clearly implies that “city” in respect to the support requirement is defined as a place that has its own “Government”.

I am very much in agreement with you that the 2012 AGB specification “city name” is a disaster. It’s not really defined and way too broad. By introducing a population-size cutoff we eliminate all the smallish places that nobody really would ever create a geo gTLD for anyways – so brands and generic term applications have free reign! These smaller places can still OBJECT to an application – example would be “Aspen”.

And this is precisely one of our tasks here: to unearth language and provisions of the 2012 AGB that maybe “worked” in 2012 – but likely create confusion in future rounds.

Thanks,

Alexander

*From:* Susan Payne [mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com <susan.payne@valideus.com>] *Sent:* Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:41 AM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!

Well Alexander, this is a perfect example of why if you are going to agree with the wide-ranging and imprecise assertions of others then it would be well to be clear exactly what you are agreeing with. You actually do not agree with Christopher at all –or at least in large part.

What’s called a city seems to vary greatly from country to country. I’ve been to UK fishing villages that are bigger than “cities” in some other countries. The AGB just refers to a “city” but without defining what that is. Not that there’s any basis at law of course for the AGB city consent requirements, just for the avoidance of doubt.

*Susan Payne*

*Head of Legal Policy* | *Valideus Ltd*

28-30 Little Russell StreetWell

London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom

E: susan.payne@valideus.com

D: +44 20 7421 8255

T: +44 20 7421 8299

M: +44 7971 661175

*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of* Alexander Schubert *Sent:* 16 May 2018 22:33 *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!

Susan,

Your comment is very valuable:

We HAVE to prevent that places like “rock” have veto rights over brand or generic term based gTLDs! The “Rock” (in Cornwall) you mentioned is a “fishing village” – and as such DOESN’T require any letter of non-objection per the 2012 AGB at all! But the point itself is well taken:

We need to qualify a threshold for protection – most likely by quantifying the population! If we have a 10,000 (or 50,000) inhabitant cut-off: the overlay between those sizeable cities and brands and or generic terms is MINIMAL!

Thanks,

Alexander

*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of* Susan Payne *Sent:* Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:23 AM *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org

Agreed Greg

Christopher, you appear to be suggesting that the term “rock” since it happens to be the name of at least one small town in Cornwall, England, and possibly elsewhere, could not be used as a TLD by geologists, landscapers, musicians, etc etc. On what possible legal, or indeed policy, basis? So no, you may not take that as agreed.

*Susan Payne*

*Head of Legal Policy* | *Valideus Ltd*

28-30 Little Russell Street

London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom

E: susan.payne@valideus.com

D: +44 20 7421 8255

T: +44 20 7421 8299

M: +44 7971 661175

*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of* Greg Shatan *Sent:* 16 May 2018 21:46 *To:* lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org

Christopher wrote:

3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?)

There has been significant— repeated — objection to that proposition, so no, you may not take it that it is agreed in WT5.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that.

Greg

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:39 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.euWilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

Good afternoon:

With respect, this is the first time that I have perceived that in 2012, Geo-Names Review was different from the Geo-Names Panel. I shall try and get my head around that!

Meanwhile, it would clearly be an advantage to have a review function available for ALL Geo-related applications, up front, BEFORE applicants and the mechanisms spend time and money on the approval procedures.

I have already posted several comments that would significantly reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications. *Pour Memoire:*

1. The application should be from an entity within the jurisdiction of the geo-name in question, and the proposed TLD Registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction. There should not be any incorporations in third country tax havens.

2. There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may be applied for by any one entity.

3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?)

Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and during implementation.

Regards

CW

PS: Since all applications for Geo-Names should have received non-objection letters from the appropriate authorities, I might imagine that the scope for String Contention would be considerably reduced if not eliminated.

_______________________________________________

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>

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@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; 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.*

o And 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.*

o You 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@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Freitag, 1. Juni 2018 06:44 *To:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>

*Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@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 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 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@auda.org.au <liz.williams@auda.org.au>] *Sent:* Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 06:39 *To:* Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@auda.org.au 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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Dear Liz, Thanks for your input. We have to strictly distinct between the different geo-silos. Seems there is agreement to keep these silos as they are: * UN Regions (100% irrelevant as all of them have been applied for – and nobody goes for a .europe – or so I think) * ISO 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions * Capital cities The ONLY other silo in 2012 was “cities”. And that’s what I am talking about. We might extend protections to OTHER “geo-entities” – but let’s maybe clean up the city question – and who knows: the solution might provide a blueprint for other silos! Answering your points: A) generic terms: If we were to have a mix of the lower of absolute number of city inhabitants & percentage of the country (e.g. 250k & 2.5% - whatever is lower); then I don’t see that any “generic terms” will be affected. The overlap between “generic term” and cities of that size is minimal to zero: and 99.9% of generic terms are undesirable as gTLD anyways. This isn’t a “dragnet” – but a precision instrument. There is no evidence that brands would be forced to jump through extra hoops. The few brands that are feeding on a city name AND want to apply for a gTLD: that’s PRECISELY WHY WE MAKE THIS RULE! If you are a brand and needed to create a positive connotation with a big city: legal; but that doesn’t mean tail can wiggle with dog. B) contention sets Competing applications. I think the rule isn’t too complicated: If you meet the criteria you need the letter. The one who has the letter trumps others who don’t. If several applicants have the letter (for the same or different cities): contention set. If the smaller city cries “unfair” – try an objection. This rule (like ALL policy that was ever made) might be unfair in a small subset of instances – but do you suggest it’s better to have ZERO protections? C) Nepal, Taiwan, Palestine, California, Kurdistan, Crimea, Jerusalem: In the context of “city names” I don’t see a huge problem. And that’s the silo we look at in the moment. And in these regions if some “resistance” (e.g. Kurds) were to apply for city names to promote resistance against the ruling Government: the ISP’s of that country would be ordered to filter that city gTLD anyways. But again: in the context of city names we are talking about very, very few POTENTIAL cases (likely zero). So the clearly neutral measure regarding “cities” was in the 2012 AGB: “The relevant Government has to approve if the string has geo-use intention.” All I suggest is to make policy that the “no geo-use” provision doesn’t apply if the city meets certain clear and neutral measures – e.g. a combination of absolute number of inhabitants or percentage of country citizens. The rationale here is: if a city is (relatively) big enough it should be treated like a capital or subnational region. The exact cutoff measures remain subject to deliberation. Let’s have them “low” first to give cities a chance – we might lift the bar over time. Has someone access to city data and programming so we could estimate the number of cities that meet that requirement – and run it against a dictionary? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Williams Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2018 10:08 AM To: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Work Track 5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! 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@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@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@gmail.com <mailto:justine.chew@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@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@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. o And 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. o You 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@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Freitag, 1. Juni 2018 06:44 To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@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@auda.org.au] Sent: Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 06:39 To: Alexander Schubert <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@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@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@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@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

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@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@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@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@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@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@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@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@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@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@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@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@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. o And 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. o You 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@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Freitag, 1. Juni 2018 06:44 To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@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@auda.org.au] Sent: Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 06:39 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@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@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@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@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Dear Liz: I expect that most applications for geo-names will be made by the country/region/city/community concerned who already hold prior customary use rights (or even legal rights) to the geo-name in question. If they do not apply now, their future interests must be protected. ICANN should respect that as a matter of policy. There is - fortunately - already plenty of space on the Internet for freedom of speech. But the idea that ICANN would be complicit in approving contested geo-names as TLDs, only in the name of freedom of speech - which BTW could cut both ways - is most unlikely to fly anywhere soon. In any case, the priority for freedom of speech should accrue to the users of the geo-name in question, not to the applicant. A little realism, please … Christopher

El 5 de junio de 2018 a las 20:26 Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> escribió:

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 because no 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@auda.org.au mailto:liz.williams@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@gmail.com mailto:kavouss.arasteh@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@auda.org.au mailto:liz.williams@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@auda.org.au mailto:liz.williams@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@gmail.com mailto:justine.chew@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@schubert.berlin mailto:alexander@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” inhttp://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.

o And 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.

o You 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@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org ] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Freitag, 1. Juni 2018 06:44 To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net >

Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@ca.inter.net mailto:mmoll@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 ahttp://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 ahttp://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@auda.org.au mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au ] > > Sent: Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 06:39 > > To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin > > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@auda.org.au mailto:liz.williams@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@schubert.berlin mailto:alexander@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@icann.org mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@icann.org mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@icann.org mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@icann.org mailto: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

Clear guidance would be for such applicants to seek early contact with relevant public authorities and their non-objection. The potential advisory panel on geonames could help them in such endeavours, as previously mentioned. Kind regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Liz Williams Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. Juni 2018 23:30 An: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! Thanks Christopher I am trying to keep the conversation open and ideas flowing for as long as well possibly can to think about instances of where our (well-intentioned) policy recommendations may have unintended implementation consequences. We have seen that in the case of Patagonia and we could easily see it again if we continued the theme of outdoor brands like Kathmandu and North Face. We may decide that we have resolved this particular brand/geographic term conundrum; we may decide that risks of dual/competing applications are low. I think in both instances it is high risk for applicants and even higher risk for evaluators unless we have clear guidance. If that takes longer to work through at this stage I think it’s time well spent. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@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 6 Jun 2018, at 5:44 am, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Liz: I expect that most applications for geo-names will be made by the country/region/city/community concerned who already hold prior customary use rights (or even legal rights) to the geo-name in question. If they do not apply now, their future interests must be protected. ICANN should respect that as a matter of policy. There is - fortunately - already plenty of space on the Internet for freedom of speech. But the idea that ICANN would be complicit in approving contested geo-names as TLDs, only in the name of freedom of speech - which BTW could cut both ways - is most unlikely to fly anywhere soon. In any case, the priority for freedom of speech should accrue to the users of the geo-name in question, not to the applicant. A little realism, please … Christopher El 5 de junio de 2018 a las 20:26 Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> escribió: 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<http://meissen.de> leads you to meissen.com<http://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 because no 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@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@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@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@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@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@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@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@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@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@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@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@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. o And 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. o You 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@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Freitag, 1. Juni 2018 06:44 To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@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@auda.org.au] Sent: Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 06:39 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@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@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@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@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Jorge, I support your view and comments below. Best regards / Med vennlig hilsen Ann-Cathrin Marcussen Head of Legal UNINETT Norid AS 7465 Trondheim Oslokontor St Olavs Plass 2 0165 Oslo Mobil +47 920 14 282 acm@uninett.no<mailto:acm@uninett.no> 6. jun. 2018 kl. 10:29 skrev Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>: The advisory board could of course be subject to confidentiality rules if the confidentiality of the string is an issue for the applicant. Professional and early advice on whether a string has a geographic meaning and which the relevant public authorities are is IMO something quite valuable for a prospective applicant. Leaving that to the evaluation phase (when substantial investments have been made and the danger of an objection from a non-contacted public authority is high) is really something I would call “ill-advised”… Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Juni 2018 08:37 An: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>; lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! Clear guidance would be for such applicants to seek early contact with relevant public authorities and their non-objection. The potential advisory panel on geonames could help them in such endeavours, as previously mentioned. Kind regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Liz Williams Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. Juni 2018 23:30 An: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! Thanks Christopher I am trying to keep the conversation open and ideas flowing for as long as well possibly can to think about instances of where our (well-intentioned) policy recommendations may have unintended implementation consequences. We have seen that in the case of Patagonia and we could easily see it again if we continued the theme of outdoor brands like Kathmandu and North Face. We may decide that we have resolved this particular brand/geographic term conundrum; we may decide that risks of dual/competing applications are low. I think in both instances it is high risk for applicants and even higher risk for evaluators unless we have clear guidance. If that takes longer to work through at this stage I think it’s time well spent. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@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 6 Jun 2018, at 5:44 am, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Liz: I expect that most applications for geo-names will be made by the country/region/city/community concerned who already hold prior customary use rights (or even legal rights) to the geo-name in question. If they do not apply now, their future interests must be protected. ICANN should respect that as a matter of policy. There is - fortunately - already plenty of space on the Internet for freedom of speech. But the idea that ICANN would be complicit in approving contested geo-names as TLDs, only in the name of freedom of speech - which BTW could cut both ways - is most unlikely to fly anywhere soon. In any case, the priority for freedom of speech should accrue to the users of the geo-name in question, not to the applicant. A little realism, please … Christopher El 5 de junio de 2018 a las 20:26 Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> escribió: 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<http://meissen.de/> leads you to meissen.com<http://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 because no 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@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@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@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@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@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@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@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@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@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@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@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@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. o And 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. o You 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@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Freitag, 1. Juni 2018 06:44 To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@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@auda.org.au] Sent: Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 06:39 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@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@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@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@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

A very helpful summary. Thank you Katrin. Maureen On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:19 pm Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com> wrote:

Dear All,

reading through all comments, I thought it might be a good exercise to try to focus on the things which we want to improve. So let me summarize the facts and propose some options how to enhance the AGB 2012:

Facts

+ there were no issues with TLD applications which contacted the relevant government before they filed the application (.nyc, .tokyo, .rio, .paris, .hamburg, …)

+ there were issues with TLD applications, where applicants did not contact the relevant government before filing the application (.tata, .spa,….)

+ those issues led to serious delays in the application process for those applicants, and caused other mitigation procedures at ICANN org which might have been avoidable

What is the goal?

+ keep/enhance transparency and predictability for applicants in the TLD application process

+ make the application process for the ICANN community and all affected stakeholders as predictable, clear and straight-forward as possible

+ define balanced rules which consider the interests of all stakeholders

So how to reach those goals?

+ Mandatory check by each applicant, whether applied-for TLD is a geoName that equates a certain category (Capital city, …)

+ For applications which equate a geoName, certain mechanisms apply

Possible ways

+ require proof with the application, that applicants for a TLD made a check whether their TLD equates a geoName of a certain category (Capital city, …)

+ require proof with the application, that applicants for a TLD which equates a geoName reached out to the relevant government

+ require non-objection or support letter for a certain category of geoNames (Capital city, …)

Looking forward what others say.

Kind regards,

Katrin

DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting www.dotzon.consulting

DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin

*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Ann-Cathrin Marcussen *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 6. Juni 2018 10:33 *An:* Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!

Jorge, I support your view and comments below.

Best regards / Med vennlig hilsen

Ann-Cathrin Marcussen Head of Legal

UNINETT Norid AS 7465 Trondheim

Oslokontor St Olavs Plass 2 0165 Oslo

Mobil +47 920 14 282 acm@uninett.no

6. jun. 2018 kl. 10:29 skrev Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch:

The advisory board could of course be subject to confidentiality rules if the confidentiality of the string is an issue for the applicant. Professional and early advice on whether a string has a geographic meaning and which the relevant public authorities are is IMO something quite valuable for a prospective applicant. Leaving that to the evaluation phase (when substantial investments have been made and the danger of an objection from a non-contacted public authority is high) is really something I would call “ill-advised”…

Best

Jorge

*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von * Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 6. Juni 2018 08:37 *An:* liz.williams@auda.org.au; lists@christopherwilkinson.eu *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!

Clear guidance would be for such applicants to seek early contact with relevant public authorities and their non-objection. The potential advisory panel on geonames could help them in such endeavours, as previously mentioned.

Kind regards

Jorge

*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Liz Williams *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 5. Juni 2018 23:30 *An:* lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!

Thanks Christopher

I am trying to keep the conversation open and ideas flowing for as long as well possibly can to think about instances of where our (well-intentioned) policy recommendations may have unintended implementation consequences. We have seen that in the case of Patagonia and we could easily see it again if we continued the theme of outdoor brands like Kathmandu and North Face.

We may decide that we have resolved this particular brand/geographic term conundrum; we may decide that risks of dual/competing applications are low. I think in both instances it is high risk for applicants and even higher risk for evaluators unless we have clear guidance. If that takes longer to work through at this stage I think it’s time well spent.

Liz

…. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au 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 6 Jun 2018, at 5:44 am, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

Dear Liz: I expect that most applications for geo-names will be made by the country/region/city/community concerned who already hold prior customary use rights (or even legal rights) to the geo-name in question. If they do not apply now, their future interests must be protected. ICANN should respect that as a matter of policy.

There is - fortunately - already plenty of space on the Internet for freedom of speech.

But the idea that ICANN would be complicit in approving contested geo-names as TLDs, only in the name of freedom of speech - which BTW could cut both ways - is most unlikely to fly anywhere soon.

In any case, the priority for freedom of speech should accrue to the users of the geo-name in question, not to the applicant.

A little realism, please …

Christopher

El 5 de junio de 2018 a las 20:26 Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> escribió:

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 because no 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@auda.org.au 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@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@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@auda.org.au 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@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@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; 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.*

o And 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.*

o You 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@icann.org] *On Behalf Of* Greg Shatan *Sent:* Freitag, 1. Juni 2018 06:44 *To:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>

*Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@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 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 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@auda.org.au <liz.williams@auda.org.au>] *Sent:* Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 06:39 *To:* Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@auda.org.au 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@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@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

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Katrin, The first category is not really about contact. In most, if not all, of these cases, the applications were made by the city or by a group working in concert with the city. These really should be viewed as applications by or on behalf of the city associated with that string. Contact merely for the purpose of getting a consent/non-objection was not the issue. In the other group, I believe that Tata Group contacted the Moroccan province of Tata (pop. Approx. 121,000) early on as it was required to do by the AGB. Whether it was before the application or not, I do not know. I believe that non-responsiveness was the issue, causing mounting frustration on the part of Tata Group, a global conglomerate based in India, with total turnover of approx. $151.62 billion, 29 publicly listed companies, upwards of one million employees and engaged with untold millions of consumers/end-users. In the case of .spa, where the use had nothing to do with the Belgian town of Spa, no contact was required and no contact was made. After interventions by the Belgian government and years of costs and delays, it was decided that no contact was needed. If the intent of your summary was to imply that the “problems” occurred because no contact was made, and to further imply that problems would have been solved if contact is made, there is no basis for those implications. If anything, the problems were caused by (a) granting a consent/nonobjection (in this case a “pocket veto”) privilege to every province in the world, (b) government non-responsiveness, and (c) the exercise of a prerogative to which there was no entitlement. I believe all of this points to severely limiting any consent/nonobjection process to a very few geographic terms, clarifying the boundaries between those granted that prerogative and those with no such privilege, and clarifying that those without such privilege are free to apply, and free to object if they believe they have an independent basis to do so (i.e., not a basis created by this group). Best regards, Greg On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 5:21 AM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:

A very helpful summary. Thank you Katrin.

Maureen

On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:19 pm Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com> wrote:

...

Dear All,

reading through all comments, I thought it might be a good exercise to try to focus on the things which we want to improve. So let me summarize the facts and propose some options how to enhance the AGB 2012:

Facts

+ there were no issues with TLD applications which contacted the relevant government before they filed the application (.nyc, .tokyo, .rio, .paris, .hamburg, …)

+ there were issues with TLD applications, where applicants did not contact the relevant government before filing the application (.tata, .spa,….)

+ those issues led to serious delays in the application process for those applicants, and caused other mitigation procedures at ICANN org which might have been avoidable

What is the goal?

+ keep/enhance transparency and predictability for applicants in the TLD application process

+ make the application process for the ICANN community and all affected stakeholders as predictable, clear and straight-forward as possible

+ define balanced rules which consider the interests of all stakeholders

So how to reach those goals?

+ Mandatory check by each applicant, whether applied-for TLD is a geoName that equates a certain category (Capital city, …)

+ For applications which equate a geoName, certain mechanisms apply

Possible ways

+ require proof with the application, that applicants for a TLD made a check whether their TLD equates a geoName of a certain category (Capital city, …)

+ require proof with the application, that applicants for a TLD which equates a geoName reached out to the relevant government

+ require non-objection or support letter for a certain category of geoNames (Capital city, …)

Looking forward what others say.

Kind regards,

Katrin

DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting www.dotzon.consulting

DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin

*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Ann-Cathrin Marcussen *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 6. Juni 2018 10:33 *An:* Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!

Jorge, I support your view and comments below.

Best regards / Med vennlig hilsen

Ann-Cathrin Marcussen Head of Legal

UNINETT Norid AS 7465 Trondheim

Oslokontor St Olavs Plass 2 0165 Oslo

Mobil +47 920 14 282 acm@uninett.no

6. jun. 2018 kl. 10:29 skrev Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch:

The advisory board could of course be subject to confidentiality rules if the confidentiality of the string is an issue for the applicant. Professional and early advice on whether a string has a geographic meaning and which the relevant public authorities are is IMO something quite valuable for a prospective applicant. Leaving that to the evaluation phase (when substantial investments have been made and the danger of an objection from a non-contacted public authority is high) is really something I would call “ill-advised”…

Best

Jorge

*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von * Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 6. Juni 2018 08:37 *An:* liz.williams@auda.org.au; lists@christopherwilkinson.eu *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!

Clear guidance would be for such applicants to seek early contact with relevant public authorities and their non-objection. The potential advisory panel on geonames could help them in such endeavours, as previously mentioned.

Kind regards

Jorge

*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Liz Williams *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 5. Juni 2018 23:30 *An:* lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!

Thanks Christopher

I am trying to keep the conversation open and ideas flowing for as long as well possibly can to think about instances of where our (well-intentioned) policy recommendations may have unintended implementation consequences. We have seen that in the case of Patagonia and we could easily see it again if we continued the theme of outdoor brands like Kathmandu and North Face.

We may decide that we have resolved this particular brand/geographic term conundrum; we may decide that risks of dual/competing applications are low. I think in both instances it is high risk for applicants and even higher risk for evaluators unless we have clear guidance. If that takes longer to work through at this stage I think it’s time well spent.

Liz

…. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au 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 6 Jun 2018, at 5:44 am, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

Dear Liz: I expect that most applications for geo-names will be made by the country/region/city/community concerned who already hold prior customary use rights (or even legal rights) to the geo-name in question. If they do not apply now, their future interests must be protected. ICANN should respect that as a matter of policy.

There is - fortunately - already plenty of space on the Internet for freedom of speech.

But the idea that ICANN would be complicit in approving contested geo-names as TLDs, only in the name of freedom of speech - which BTW could cut both ways - is most unlikely to fly anywhere soon.

In any case, the priority for freedom of speech should accrue to the users of the geo-name in question, not to the applicant.

A little realism, please …

Christopher

El 5 de junio de 2018 a las 20:26 Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> escribió:

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 because no 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@auda.org.au 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@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@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@auda.org.au 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@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@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; 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.*

o And 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.*

o You 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@icann.org ] *On Behalf Of* Greg Shatan *Sent:* Freitag, 1. Juni 2018 06:44 *To:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>

*Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@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 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 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@auda.org.au <liz.williams@auda.org.au>] *Sent:* Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 06:39 *To:* Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@auda.org.au 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@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@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

_______________________________________________ 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

Dear Greg, thank you for your input. I think the discussion would benefit from facts instead of “believes”, so input from anyone who can shed a light on which applicant did reach out in advance to the relevant government or not would be greatly appreciated. I cannot confirm that “most, if not all applicants for geoTLDs were the cities themselves or a group working in concert with the city” as you stated. Some did, of course (like Stockholm, Paris, NYC). But some just approached the city/region for the non-objection/support letter. E.g., the German cities/regions did a tender for the non-objection/support letter, which did not result in an “application made by or on behalf of the city”. It was a tender, and the result a letter for the applicant. Where applicants had not to participate in a tender, they managed to identify the right contact and get the respective letter. Apart from that, which problem would arise, if applicants have to confirm that they checked if their applied-for string equates a geoName or not - before filing their application? I rather see the advantage that applicants who discover an identical geoName while doing this exercise would be able to mitigate any potential issues with their application beforehand rather than getting into serious delays and/or issues with the application later. Kind regards Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Juni 2018 21:59 An: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>; Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! Katrin, The first category is not really about contact. In most, if not all, of these cases, the applications were made by the city or by a group working in concert with the city. These really should be viewed as applications by or on behalf of the city associated with that string. Contact merely for the purpose of getting a consent/non-objection was not the issue. In the other group, I believe that Tata Group contacted the Moroccan province of Tata (pop. Approx. 121,000) early on as it was required to do by the AGB. Whether it was before the application or not, I do not know. I believe that non-responsiveness was the issue, causing mounting frustration on the part of Tata Group, a global conglomerate based in India, with total turnover of approx. $151.62 billion, 29 publicly listed companies, upwards of one million employees and engaged with untold millions of consumers/end-users. In the case of .spa, where the use had nothing to do with the Belgian town of Spa, no contact was required and no contact was made. After interventions by the Belgian government and years of costs and delays, it was decided that no contact was needed. If the intent of your summary was to imply that the “problems” occurred because no contact was made, and to further imply that problems would have been solved if contact is made, there is no basis for those implications. If anything, the problems were caused by (a) granting a consent/nonobjection (in this case a “pocket veto”) privilege to every province in the world, (b) government non-responsiveness, and (c) the exercise of a prerogative to which there was no entitlement. I believe all of this points to severely limiting any consent/nonobjection process to a very few geographic terms, clarifying the boundaries between those granted that prerogative and those with no such privilege, and clarifying that those without such privilege are free to apply, and free to object if they believe they have an independent basis to do so (i.e., not a basis created by this group). Best regards, Greg On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 5:21 AM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: A very helpful summary. Thank you Katrin. Maureen On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:19 pm Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.com>> wrote: Dear All, reading through all comments, I thought it might be a good exercise to try to focus on the things which we want to improve. So let me summarize the facts and propose some options how to enhance the AGB 2012: Facts + there were no issues with TLD applications which contacted the relevant government before they filed the application (.nyc, .tokyo, .rio, .paris, .hamburg, …) + there were issues with TLD applications, where applicants did not contact the relevant government before filing the application (.tata, .spa,….) + those issues led to serious delays in the application process for those applicants, and caused other mitigation procedures at ICANN org which might have been avoidable What is the goal? + keep/enhance transparency and predictability for applicants in the TLD application process + make the application process for the ICANN community and all affected stakeholders as predictable, clear and straight-forward as possible + define balanced rules which consider the interests of all stakeholders So how to reach those goals? + Mandatory check by each applicant, whether applied-for TLD is a geoName that equates a certain category (Capital city, …) + For applications which equate a geoName, certain mechanisms apply Possible ways + require proof with the application, that applicants for a TLD made a check whether their TLD equates a geoName of a certain category (Capital city, …) + require proof with the application, that applicants for a TLD which equates a geoName reached out to the relevant government + require non-objection or support letter for a certain category of geoNames (Capital city, …) Looking forward what others say. Kind regards, Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Ann-Cathrin Marcussen Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Juni 2018 10:33 An: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! Jorge, I support your view and comments below. Best regards / Med vennlig hilsen Ann-Cathrin Marcussen Head of Legal UNINETT Norid AS 7465 Trondheim Oslokontor St Olavs Plass 2 0165 Oslo Mobil +47 920 14 282 acm@uninett.no<mailto:acm@uninett.no> 6. jun. 2018 kl. 10:29 skrev Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>: The advisory board could of course be subject to confidentiality rules if the confidentiality of the string is an issue for the applicant. Professional and early advice on whether a string has a geographic meaning and which the relevant public authorities are is IMO something quite valuable for a prospective applicant. Leaving that to the evaluation phase (when substantial investments have been made and the danger of an objection from a non-contacted public authority is high) is really something I would call “ill-advised”… Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Juni 2018 08:37 An: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>; lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! Clear guidance would be for such applicants to seek early contact with relevant public authorities and their non-objection. The potential advisory panel on geonames could help them in such endeavours, as previously mentioned. Kind regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Liz Williams Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. Juni 2018 23:30 An: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! Thanks Christopher I am trying to keep the conversation open and ideas flowing for as long as well possibly can to think about instances of where our (well-intentioned) policy recommendations may have unintended implementation consequences. We have seen that in the case of Patagonia and we could easily see it again if we continued the theme of outdoor brands like Kathmandu and North Face. We may decide that we have resolved this particular brand/geographic term conundrum; we may decide that risks of dual/competing applications are low. I think in both instances it is high risk for applicants and even higher risk for evaluators unless we have clear guidance. If that takes longer to work through at this stage I think it’s time well spent. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@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 6 Jun 2018, at 5:44 am, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Liz: I expect that most applications for geo-names will be made by the country/region/city/community concerned who already hold prior customary use rights (or even legal rights) to the geo-name in question. If they do not apply now, their future interests must be protected. ICANN should respect that as a matter of policy. There is - fortunately - already plenty of space on the Internet for freedom of speech. But the idea that ICANN would be complicit in approving contested geo-names as TLDs, only in the name of freedom of speech - which BTW could cut both ways - is most unlikely to fly anywhere soon. In any case, the priority for freedom of speech should accrue to the users of the geo-name in question, not to the applicant. A little realism, please … Christopher El 5 de junio de 2018 a las 20:26 Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> escribió: 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<http://meissen.de/> leads you to meissen.com<http://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 because no 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@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@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@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@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@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@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@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@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@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@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@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@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. o And 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. o You 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@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Freitag, 1. Juni 2018 06:44 To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@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@auda.org.au] Sent: Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 06:39 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@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@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@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@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Liz, first: We need to distinguish between CITY NAMES and other geo-names. The 2012 AGB defined a couple of categories – among others are “capital cities”; and “other cities”. I urge that we stay within ONE CATHEGORY and maybe solve the city problem separately from new to be introduced categories. In regard to CITY NAMES: You seem to suggest that “for fairness and free speech” we need to provide access to everybody – so the highest bidder wins the name (or the singular applicant). You say that this would allow “dissenters” to exercise their “rights”. In the realm of city names: I can’t really imagine any cases. If this problem resurfaces in a new to be introduced categories: Let’s discuss it in THAT context. But let’s not mix it with city names. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Williams Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 12:10 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! 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@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@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@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@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@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@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@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@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@gmail.com <mailto:justine.chew@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@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@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. o And 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. o You 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@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Freitag, 1. Juni 2018 06:44 To: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@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@auda.org.au] Sent: Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 06:39 To: Alexander Schubert <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@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@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@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@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Just on the final thought below: I wonder what kinds of neutral measures there could be to measure applications. If a city of 500,000 comes along with the same name as a hamlet of 500 and a brand of beer -- all seeking to acquire the same string -- under what conditions would the name NOT go to the large city. Marita Moll On 6/2/2018 3:08 AM, Liz Williams 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@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@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@gmail.com <mailto:justine.chew@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@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@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@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Freitag, 1. Juni 2018 06:44 *To:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>

*Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@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@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>] *Sent:* Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 06:39 *To:* Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@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@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@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@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@icann.org <mailto: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

Well, maybe we can assume that it would always go to the city of 500,000 because of the number of people who would be directly negatively affected if the name went to beer brand. Could that be considered a neutral measure? Marita Moll On 6/7/2018 8:34 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:

THAT is the question....

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:23 PM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote:

Just on the final thought below: I wonder what kinds of neutral measures there could be to measure applications. If a city of 500,000 comes along with the same name as a hamlet of 500 and a brand of beer -- all seeking to acquire the same string -- under what conditions would the name NOT go to the large city.

Marita Moll

On 6/2/2018 3:08 AM, Liz Williams 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@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@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@gmail.com <mailto:justine.chew@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@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@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@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Freitag, 1. Juni 2018 06:44 *To:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>

*Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@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@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>] *Sent:* Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 06:39 *To:* Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@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@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@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@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>

Hello Greg. I don't get this reasoning at all. Best beer of all time would be subjective. Best Rolex watch of all time -- also subjective. I don't see how those fit into this equation A small town better know than a city of 500,000 -- better know globally, that is. I'd like to hear an example A crime-ridden city -- I don't think we are in the position of making a moral judgement of this kind. At least the size of a city is a quantitative measure -- once we decide which measure to take (metropolitan, urban, etc.).  There's nothing subjective about it, nor is it based on any moral judgement. And we would know exactly how many people would be directly affected. Marita Moll On 6/8/2018 8:14 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

No, it’s not a neutral measure. There is no neutral hierarchy of legitimate uses.

What if it’s a global brand of beer? What if it’s considered the best beer of all time? What if the town is better known than the city? What if the city is a crime-ridden hole? What if it’s luxury goods instead of beer?

But at least here we are talking about resolving contention sets among applicants. When we talk about applicants vs. non-applicants, a hierarchy of favoring use vs. non-use seems fairly neutral.

Best regards,

Greg

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 8:48 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote:

Well, maybe we can assume that it would always go to the city of 500,000 because of the number of people who would be directly negatively affected if the name went to beer brand. Could that be considered a neutral measure?

Marita Moll

On 6/7/2018 8:34 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:

...

THAT is the question....

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:23 PM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote:

Just on the final thought below: I wonder what kinds of neutral measures there could be to measure applications. If a city of 500,000 comes along with the same name as a hamlet of 500 and a brand of beer -- all seeking to acquire the same string -- under what conditions would the name NOT go to the large city.

Marita Moll

On 6/2/2018 3:08 AM, Liz Williams 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@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@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@gmail.com <mailto:justine.chew@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@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@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@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Freitag, 1. Juni 2018 06:44 *To:* Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>

*Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@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@auda.org.au] *Sent:* Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 06:39 *To:* Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@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@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@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

Okay, that's a good one. So, as I said in another e-mail about this, maybe age trumps size in a case like this. I don't think there are going to be that many cases like this to deal with. Marita Moll On 6/8/2018 8:50 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez wrote:

---

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez

El 2018-06-08 18:42, Marita Moll escribió:

...

A small town better know than a city of 500,000 -- better know globally, that is. I'd like to hear an example

....... Córdoba Spain (inhab. 326,609 (2016) but founded 784 A.D.) happens to be smaller than Córdoba Argentina (inhab. 1.391 million (2010)

...

At least the size of a city is a quantitative measure -- once we decide which measure to take (metropolitan, urban, etc.).  There's nothing subjective about it, nor is it based on any moral judgement. And we would know exactly how many people would be directly affected.

---

Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

I'm sure Greg is talking about Jever (Population [5]: 13,863 (Dec 31, 2008), the name of the best Pilsener of all times......... --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQENBFqh7xwBCAC7PBUUek72U8teLrAieWI+JBo/nz0rQObzKgzGNWm2bb+i90mD roNsrvwDJiGOsB/VAhJy6ilIhs++QrxhVEzMz6oKJa8ANaNNvnK2Z8heYm1aC97E qY6y1z853b6F3XrN8262dor9NZEqaK28NVwLsFTfkGKhb4f3rJlCDmhwxt5VHhBQ MHKGxyutq0fyJpG6QpoAoRLaYXrq+xjXARhN9JBjeRRzbjnBbWt7+lRdCrZdOxfD ivRut9F2zMJq8RmeI5goTcq03IRLtKf41A6Np5K//HLe7GlHWH9g4pSKF+UB+EMe S506TxI0dVbyT3jlTnhhfNA/bpQXHcdCZ5EhABEBAAG0F2Nhcmxvc3JhdWxAZ3V0 aWVycmV6LnNliQEcBBABAgAGBQJaoe8cAAoJEOkK/VKjr2tvztgH/1zInwNszd4w 21UilxVmXX2J1SPZG6xXwbwU5BukIm7iBVYwxxPlIAZdJbG0/QynK2oWU1e1Zjed vBemfJtjOn2yRWo3P13PUV/2/trHWgUk5bA3eIUbWDW5fQRLW+TaHC7TuRKgRaJC NgdBItEniQz7DakGzld3PWmsTvIWd4N/fqzATD3DOZmONF52lyVuAEvKoF4rMRTR emvCrL66xEu19u9+Urk7R+DQuFQMNuX0MqC6/vIsmXYZPH7jnV6ZDyzb0BUnjYcx 6MH/YwJx29yjA4iN1NpwCpy1hc+YP1oavz2t+6isM6wB0mXlAazw2d83zwypsH6C 8xgjuRFm9xQ= =RX04 -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- El 2018-06-08 18:14, Greg Shatan escribió:

No, it's not a neutral measure. There is no neutral hierarchy of legitimate uses.

What if it's a global brand of beer? What if it's considered the best beer of all time? What if the town is better known than the city? What if the city is a crime-ridden hole? What if it's luxury goods instead of beer?

But at least here we are talking about resolving contention sets among applicants. When we talk about applicants vs. non-applicants, a hierarchy of favoring use vs. non-use seems fairly neutral.

Best regards,

Greg

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 8:48 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:

Well, maybe we can assume that it would always go to the city of 500,000 because of the number of people who would be directly negatively affected if the name went to beer brand. Could that be considered a neutral measure?

Marita Moll

On 6/7/2018 8:34 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: THAT is the question....

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:23 PM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:

Just on the final thought below: I wonder what kinds of neutral measures there could be to measure applications. If a city of 500,000 comes along with the same name as a hamlet of 500 and a brand of beer -- all seeking to acquire the same string -- under what conditions would the name NOT go to the large city.

Marita Moll

On 6/2/2018 3:08 AM, Liz Williams 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@auda.org.au www.auda.org.au [1]

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@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@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 [2]; 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.

o And 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.

o You 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@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Greg Shatan SENT: Freitag, 1. Juni 2018 06:44 TO: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net>

CC: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@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 [3] 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 [3] 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@auda.org.au] SENT: Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 06:39 TO: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> CC: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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@auda.org.au www.auda.org.au [4]

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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 Links: ------ [1] http://www.auda.org.au [2] http://google.com/ [3] http://tires.com/ [4] http://www.auda.org.au/ [5] https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS759US759&q=jever+germany+population&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgE-LUz9U3MDNNMjHX0spOttLPyU9OLMnMz9MvLgHSxSWZyYk58UWp6UAhq4L8gtIcsCwA4-1nhzkAAAA&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIp8Pc4MbbAhXGzlkKHV5DBxIQ6BMI7QEoADAg

So … Rock is about five minutes from my home. It is not a big place…but it is a nice ferry ride from Padstow. What this exchange illustrates is the silliness of trying to have a size-based definition of what is a “city” or not. And for those people who live in Gibraltar (a very big and contested rock); and others who claim ownership of the traditional lands of another rock (Ayers Rock or Uluru) or any other place that is or could be called a rock gets us into the realm of impracticality. However, if the residents of Rock in Cornwall, where there is a huge tourism industry (only in the summer!), great surfing (as long as you don’t compare it to Australia) and nice fish restaurants want to apply for the .rock TLD then we shouldn’t stop them. Nor should we stop those geologists who like to talk about .rock geological formations. Or, just for fun, those rock music fans who are not satisfied with .music... What is necessary is to work out policy principles that enable application evaluators to make clear decisions about whether competing applications (if that were ever the case) to decide on what applicant is best placed to run a TLD. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@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 17 May 2018, at 3:44 pm, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Alexander, Unfortunately, your facts are incorrect, or perhaps not expressed precisely enough - but in some cases it is important to be precise. 1. The 2012 AGB does not make reference to the city's government -- it only refers to "the relevant governments or public authorities." Rock certainly has a "relevant government or public authority. So Rock does not fall out of any list of "cities" based on that criterion. 2. It's incorrect to say that Rock "is such a small village (1,200 people) that it is governed by others." While the population is about right (it's 1227), Rock is governed by the Parish Council of St. Minver (Lowlands), which has a total population of 1449, so all but 222 people in St. Minver (Lowlands) live in Rock. Perhaps you were thinking of Trebetherick, where most of those remaining 222 people live. It is Trebetherick that "is such a small village that it is governed by others" -- the people of Rock. So, minimizing Rock as an obscurity governed by some far larger population is backwards. 3. There is no "requirement" in the 2012 AGB that an applicant "produce a letter of non-objection from the city’s government" unless "(a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name; and (b) The applied-for string is a city name as listed on official city documents." Otherwise, an applicant is free to proceed, whether they are applying for .rock as a music TLD or as a geologic-interest TLD or as a brand or even a persona (though Dwayne Johnson might prefer .therock). All that said, I would agree that Rock is not a "city." But, based on what? How does one define "city"? Black's Law Dictionary defines it like this: Ill England. An incorporated town or borough which is or has been the see of a bishop. Co. Litt. 10S; 1 Bl. Comm. 114; Cowell. State v. Green, 126 N. C. 103’2, 35 S. E. 4G2. A large town Incorporated with certain privileges. The inhabitants of a city. The citizens. Worcester. In America. A city Is a municipal corporation of a larger class, the distinctive feature of whose organization Is Its government by a chief executive (usually called “mayor”) and a legislative body, composed of representatives of the citizens, (usually called a “council” or “board of aldermen,”) and other officers having special functions. Wight Co. v. Wolff, 112 Ga. 169, 37 S. E. 395. I don't think that's much help for our purposes, though it sounds a bit like Marita’s email. There's this definition, from an article on WorldAtlas.com<http://WorldAtlas.com> distinguishing cities from towns https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-is-the-difference-between-a-city-an...: City: A city is a legally defined entity with a structured system of governance, and which has delegated powers to oversee local legislation as well as the management of resources. Citizens of a city are responsible for electing representatives who form the local government that provides local services. That's only a little more helpful The article also tells us that "Different countries in the world have different demographics and geographical definitions for cities.In Sweden and Denmark, a settlement of more than 200 people forms a town, whereas Australia and Canada have set a minimum of 1,000 people to make a town. This figure varies in France and Israel who have set a minimum of 2,000 people to make a city. In the US and Mexico, a city should have at least 2,500 people, compared to Japan where cities must have at least 30,000 people." (However, from my experience, no one in the more populous parts of the US would ever consider a settlement of 2500 people to be a city. In more thinly settled parts of the country, this probably makes more sense. So even these numbers are too simplistic to really be useful. Given the difficulty in defining what a city is, and how many places might be "cities", the AGB struck a reasonable compromise by limiting their gatekeeping power to potential uses in the geo-use context. I’m not necessarily saying we should keep it as is, but it was at least a decent attempt to accommodate competing concerns. Greg Greg On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Susan, Either I have not expressed myself precise enough – or I am misunderstood: In the 2012 AGB it clearly states “city name”. I think the requirement to produce a letter of non-objection from the city’s government implies that only city’s that HAVE any form of Government are targeted by this rule. Rock doesn’t have any “Government” – it is such a small village (1,200 people) that it is governed by others. There is a reference to “city government” in Module 2, page 18 of 42, 2.2.1.4.2 in 2b – there in the reference 7 (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/evaluation-procedures-04jun12-e...): “City governments with concerns about strings that are duplicates, nicknames or close renderings of a city name should not rely on the evaluation process as the primary means of protecting their interests in a string. Rather, a government may elect to file a formal objection to an application that is opposed by the relevant community, or may submit its own application for the string.” This language clearly implies that “city” in respect to the support requirement is defined as a place that has its own “Government”. I am very much in agreement with you that the 2012 AGB specification “city name” is a disaster. It’s not really defined and way too broad. By introducing a population-size cutoff we eliminate all the smallish places that nobody really would ever create a geo gTLD for anyways – so brands and generic term applications have free reign! These smaller places can still OBJECT to an application – example would be “Aspen”. And this is precisely one of our tasks here: to unearth language and provisions of the 2012 AGB that maybe “worked” in 2012 – but likely create confusion in future rounds. Thanks, Alexander From: Susan Payne [mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:41 AM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! Well Alexander, this is a perfect example of why if you are going to agree with the wide-ranging and imprecise assertions of others then it would be well to be clear exactly what you are agreeing with. You actually do not agree with Christopher at all –or at least in large part. What’s called a city seems to vary greatly from country to country. I’ve been to UK fishing villages that are bigger than “cities” in some other countries. The AGB just refers to a “city” but without defining what that is. Not that there’s any basis at law of course for the AGB city consent requirements, just for the avoidance of doubt. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell StreetWell London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: 16 May 2018 22:33 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! Susan, Your comment is very valuable: We HAVE to prevent that places like “rock” have veto rights over brand or generic term based gTLDs! The “Rock” (in Cornwall) you mentioned is a “fishing village” – and as such DOESN’T require any letter of non-objection per the 2012 AGB at all! But the point itself is well taken: We need to qualify a threshold for protection – most likely by quantifying the population! If we have a 10,000 (or 50,000) inhabitant cut-off: the overlay between those sizeable cities and brands and or generic terms is MINIMAL! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:23 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Agreed Greg Christopher, you appear to be suggesting that the term “rock” since it happens to be the name of at least one small town in Cornwall, England, and possibly elsewhere, could not be used as a TLD by geologists, landscapers, musicians, etc etc. On what possible legal, or indeed policy, basis? So no, you may not take that as agreed. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: 16 May 2018 21:46 To: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Christopher wrote: 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) There has been significant— repeated — objection to that proposition, so no, you may not take it that it is agreed in WT5. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that. Greg On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:39 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Good afternoon: With respect, this is the first time that I have perceived that in 2012, Geo-Names Review was different from the Geo-Names Panel. I shall try and get my head around that! Meanwhile, it would clearly be an advantage to have a review function available for ALL Geo-related applications, up front, BEFORE applicants and the mechanisms spend time and money on the approval procedures. I have already posted several comments that would significantly reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications. Pour Memoire: 1. The application should be from an entity within the jurisdiction of the geo-name in question, and the proposed TLD Registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction. There should not be any incorporations in third country tax havens. 2. There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may be applied for by any one entity. 3. The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?) Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and during implementation. Regards CW PS: Since all applications for Geo-Names should have received non-objection letters from the appropriate authorities, I might imagine that the scope for String Contention would be considerably reduced if not eliminated. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5