Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report
Hi Emily, TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism). Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea: * Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived! * It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later * In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it. Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind. So my suggestion (yes, again!): * Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision) * X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both. I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”? Thanks for hearing my out, Alexander.berlin From: Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC Hi Alexander, Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-08-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> and transcript here <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...> . An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC Hi, Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close). Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC Dear Work Track 5 members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins) 2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins) 3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins) 4. AOB (5 mins) If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> . Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
I think the Community Priority Evaluation survived the attempt at "hole poking" pretty much unscathed: - Unless you've been to the future, nobody has any idea if or when the gTLD application process will move away from rounds. If it does, batching or some other process could still create contention sets. "First come, first served" may never come. - It seems entirely appropriate for city-based gTLDs to authenticate registrants, whether or not they are community-based applications. "Open season" on registrations blows a hole in the concept of city-based gTLDs -- unless the only idea is to deliver Internet real estate to one preferred applicant, who can then exploit the gTLD however they please. - If there are problems with the way Community Priority processes worked, it's our job to fix them -- for geo's and (elsewhere in the WG) non-geo's as well. I understand that avoiding it would be preferable to some, and that it's easier to avoid if its warts are left on, but I can't believe any disinterested participant would support that approach. Finally, the mythical "bad actor" that is the impetus for this suggestion seems to have no basis in reality. Are there any examples of this occurring in the prior round? Of course, just about every type of "bad actor" is remotely possible, but how likely is it? Moving on... While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander: - extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories - replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime). - Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision. - Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration - A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule. - A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!) There may be others, but that's a start. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi Emily,
TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism).
Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea:
· Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived!
· It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later
· In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it.
Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind.
*So my suggestion (yes, again!):*
· *Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)*
· *X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.*
I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”?
Thanks for hearing my out,
Alexander.berlin
*From:* Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-08-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> and transcript here <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...>.
An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Reply-To: *"alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Date: *Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi,
Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close).
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Emily Barabas *Sent:* Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins)
2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins)
3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins)
4. AOB (5 mins)
If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards,
Emily
*Emily Barabas *| Policy Manager
*ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
As we both are quite vocal on this topic I try to be short: * First Come First Serve is the declared goal. Some want it already smack after the next round. Once that happens: there won’t be contention resolve mechanisms anymore – by definition! * The requirement to authenticate registrants: Yes! I agree with you – it’s a good thing! But in the realm of community priority applications you are forced to define the community very narrow – and then ONLY that narrowly defined group of entities is eligible to register domains! Imagine a brand selling stuff in the city – but has no presence there! They would not be eligible to register their brand.city domain. Unless you define the community quite broad – and my personal experience teaches me: DON’T! It might cost you your CPE. * The bad actor: They might not even see themselves as such. In the 2012 round ALL the generic namespace was up for grabs, PLUS: most players did not believe that city gTLDs would be profitable. This has changed: The best generic terms are now taken. Citiy gTLDs have proved to be profitable. Here the mechanics: VC money will be raised; and once cash is raised - strings will be chosen. Generic keywords are pretty much exhausted. City names make economic sense on several levels. If your operation model would be identical to that of “Donuts”: you won’t actively “market” your strings to anybody. You just push them out into the registrar channel. Why on earth would you care for “geo-use”? You do not! You just apply for the string, with NO INTENT AT ALL. This saves you the acquisition of the support letter – hence my formulation: “Non-geo use loophole”. Moving on …… Anybody willing to support my suggestion: * Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision) * X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both. * This provision could be included in the “non-capital cities” silo. The current language in the 2012 AGB reads: An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if: (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 The (a) portion implies the so called “non-geo use provision”. So my suggestion would be to change it to: (a) It is either clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name or the city metro area population is exceeding a threshold of X “X” needs obviously to be defined. Some would like to see it at 50k people – others at over a Million. The lower the number – the less likely we find consensus. But the definition of the threshold is independent of the measure in itself. Let’s not get hung up on the exact number – let’s see whether the general CONCEPT finds agreement: that a sizeable city should be as well protected as a national subdivision or capital city! Setting “X” to 1 Million would be a balanced approach to at least protect those city communities that are likely to potentially fall victim to applicants that simply have no “intents” – and therefore don’t voice such intent in their application – hence avoid the looping-in of the city Government! The formulation “clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name….” really is very weak and simply INVITES to NOT have such “statements” in the application! Thoughts? Thanks, Alexander From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 5:43 AM To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report I think the Community Priority Evaluation survived the attempt at "hole poking" pretty much unscathed: * Unless you've been to the future, nobody has any idea if or when the gTLD application process will move away from rounds. If it does, batching or some other process could still create contention sets. "First come, first served" may never come. * It seems entirely appropriate for city-based gTLDs to authenticate registrants, whether or not they are community-based applications. "Open season" on registrations blows a hole in the concept of city-based gTLDs -- unless the only idea is to deliver Internet real estate to one preferred applicant, who can then exploit the gTLD however they please. * If there are problems with the way Community Priority processes worked, it's our job to fix them -- for geo's and (elsewhere in the WG) non-geo's as well. I understand that avoiding it would be preferable to some, and that it's easier to avoid if its warts are left on, but I can't believe any disinterested participant would support that approach. Finally, the mythical "bad actor" that is the impetus for this suggestion seems to have no basis in reality. Are there any examples of this occurring in the prior round? Of course, just about every type of "bad actor" is remotely possible, but how likely is it? Moving on... While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander: * extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories * replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime). * Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision. * Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration * A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule. * A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!) There may be others, but that's a start. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Hi Emily, TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism). Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea: * Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived! * It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later * In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it. Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind. So my suggestion (yes, again!): * Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision) * X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both. I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”? Thanks for hearing my out, Alexander.berlin From: Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> ] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM 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] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC Hi Alexander, Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-08-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> and transcript here <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...> . An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> " <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > Date: Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC Hi, Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close). Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC Dear Work Track 5 members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins) 2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins) 3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins) 4. AOB (5 mins) If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> . Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 _______________________________________________ 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
Sorry I had to miss the call. I do want to add my support to Alexander's suggestion on establishing a category for cities of (x) size Anybody willing to support my suggestion: ·Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision) ·X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both. ·This provision could be included in the “non-capital cities” silo. Marita On 9/5/2018 4:00 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
As we both are quite vocal on this topic I try to be short:
·First Come First Serve is the declared goal. Some want it already smack after the next round. Once that happens: there won’t be contention resolve mechanisms anymore – by definition!
·The requirement to authenticate registrants: Yes! I agree with you – it’s a good thing! But in the realm of community priority applications you are forced to define the community very narrow – and then ONLY that narrowly defined group of entities is eligible to register domains! Imagine a brand selling stuff in the city – but has no presence there! They would not be eligible to register their brand.city domain. Unless you define the community quite broad – and my personal experience teaches me: DON’T! It might cost you your CPE.
·The bad actor: They might not even see themselves as such. In the 2012 round ALL the generic namespace was up for grabs, PLUS: most players did not believe that city gTLDs would be profitable. This has changed: The best generic terms are now taken. Citiy gTLDs have proved to be profitable. Here the mechanics: VC money will be raised; and once cash is raised - strings will be chosen. Generic keywords are pretty much exhausted. City names make economic sense on several levels. If your operation model would be identical to that of “Donuts”: you won’t actively “market” your strings to anybody. You just push them out into the registrar channel. Why on earth would you care for “geo-use”? You do not! You just apply for the string, with NO INTENT AT ALL. This saves you the acquisition of the support letter – hence my formulation: “Non-geo use loophole”.
Moving on ……
Anybody willing to support my suggestion:
·Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)
·X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.
·This provision could be included in the “non-capital cities” silo.
The current language in the 2012 AGB reads:
*/An application for a city name will be subject to the/*
*/geographic names requirements (i.e., will require/*
*/documentation of support or non-objection from/*
*/the relevant governments or public authorities) if:/*
*//*
*/(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/*
///Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! .......... /
·/.........////In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing .............../
/ /
*//*
“X” needs obviously to be defined. Some would like to see it at 50k people – others at over a Million. The lower the number – the less likely we find consensus. But the definition of the threshold is independent of the measure in itself. Let’s not get hung up on the exact number – let’s see whether the general CONCEPT finds agreement: that a sizeable city should be as well protected as a national subdivision or capital city! Setting “X” to 1 Million would be a balanced approach to at least protect those city communities that are likely to potentially fall victim to applicants that simply have no “intents” – and therefore don’t voice such intent in their application – hence avoid the looping-in of the city Government! The formulation “clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name….” really is very weak and simply INVITES to NOT have such “statements” in the application!
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:*Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, September 05, 2018 5:43 AM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report
I think the Community Priority Evaluation survived the attempt at "hole poking" pretty much unscathed:
* Unless you've been to the future, nobody has any idea if or when the gTLD application process will move away from rounds. If it does, batching or some other process could still create contention sets. "First come, first served" may never come. * It seems entirely appropriate for city-based gTLDs to authenticate registrants, whether or not they are community-based applications. "Open season" on registrations blows a hole in the concept of city-based gTLDs -- unless the only idea is to deliver Internet real estate to one preferred applicant, who can then exploit the gTLD however they please. * If there are problems with the way Community Priority processes worked, it's our job to fix them -- for geo's and (elsewhere in the WG) non-geo's as well. I understand that avoiding it would be preferable to some, and that it's easier to avoid if its warts are left on, but I can't believe any disinterested participant would support that approach.
Finally, the mythical "bad actor" that is the impetus for this suggestion seems to have no basis in reality. Are there any examples of this occurring in the prior round? Of course, just about every type of "bad actor" is remotely possible, but how likely is it?
Moving on...
While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander:
* extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories * replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime). * Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision. * Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration * A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule. * A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!)
There may be others, but that's a start.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Hi Emily,
TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism).
Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea:
·Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived!
·It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later
·In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it.
Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind.
*So my suggestion (yes, again!):*
·*Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)*
·*X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.*
I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”?
Thanks for hearing my out,
Alexander.berlin
*From:*Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>] *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM *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] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-08-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> and transcript here <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...>.
An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> *Reply-To: *"alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> *Date: *Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi,
Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5^th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close).
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Emily Barabas *Sent:* Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins)
2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins)
3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins)
4. AOB (5 mins)
If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
Emily
*Emily Barabas *| Policy Manager
*ICANN*| Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ 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
I also support Alexander Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Sep 2018, at 14:47, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Sorry I had to miss the call. I do want to add my support to Alexander's suggestion on establishing a category for cities of (x) size
Anybody willing to support my suggestion: · Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision) · X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both. · This provision could be included in the “non-capital cities” silo. Marita
On 9/5/2018 4:00 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: As we both are quite vocal on this topic I try to be short:
· First Come First Serve is the declared goal. Some want it already smack after the next round. Once that happens: there won’t be contention resolve mechanisms anymore – by definition! · The requirement to authenticate registrants: Yes! I agree with you – it’s a good thing! But in the realm of community priority applications you are forced to define the community very narrow – and then ONLY that narrowly defined group of entities is eligible to register domains! Imagine a brand selling stuff in the city – but has no presence there! They would not be eligible to register their brand.city domain. Unless you define the community quite broad – and my personal experience teaches me: DON’T! It might cost you your CPE. · The bad actor: They might not even see themselves as such. In the 2012 round ALL the generic namespace was up for grabs, PLUS: most players did not believe that city gTLDs would be profitable. This has changed: The best generic terms are now taken. Citiy gTLDs have proved to be profitable. Here the mechanics: VC money will be raised; and once cash is raised - strings will be chosen. Generic keywords are pretty much exhausted. City names make economic sense on several levels. If your operation model would be identical to that of “Donuts”: you won’t actively “market” your strings to anybody. You just push them out into the registrar channel. Why on earth would you care for “geo-use”? You do not! You just apply for the string, with NO INTENT AT ALL. This saves you the acquisition of the support letter – hence my formulation: “Non-geo use loophole”.
Moving on ……
Anybody willing to support my suggestion: · Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision) · X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both. · This provision could be included in the “non-capital cities” silo.
The current language in the 2012 AGB reads: An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if:
(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
Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! ..........
· ......... In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing ...............
“X” needs obviously to be defined. Some would like to see it at 50k people – others at over a Million. The lower the number – the less likely we find consensus. But the definition of the threshold is independent of the measure in itself. Let’s not get hung up on the exact number – let’s see whether the general CONCEPT finds agreement: that a sizeable city should be as well protected as a national subdivision or capital city! Setting “X” to 1 Million would be a balanced approach to at least protect those city communities that are likely to potentially fall victim to applicants that simply have no “intents” – and therefore don’t voice such intent in their application – hence avoid the looping-in of the city Government! The formulation “clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name….” really is very weak and simply INVITES to NOT have such “statements” in the application!
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 5:43 AM To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report
I think the Community Priority Evaluation survived the attempt at "hole poking" pretty much unscathed: Unless you've been to the future, nobody has any idea if or when the gTLD application process will move away from rounds. If it does, batching or some other process could still create contention sets. "First come, first served" may never come. It seems entirely appropriate for city-based gTLDs to authenticate registrants, whether or not they are community-based applications. "Open season" on registrations blows a hole in the concept of city-based gTLDs -- unless the only idea is to deliver Internet real estate to one preferred applicant, who can then exploit the gTLD however they please. If there are problems with the way Community Priority processes worked, it's our job to fix them -- for geo's and (elsewhere in the WG) non-geo's as well. I understand that avoiding it would be preferable to some, and that it's easier to avoid if its warts are left on, but I can't believe any disinterested participant would support that approach. Finally, the mythical "bad actor" that is the impetus for this suggestion seems to have no basis in reality. Are there any examples of this occurring in the prior round? Of course, just about every type of "bad actor" is remotely possible, but how likely is it?
Moving on...
While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander: extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime). Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision. Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule. A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!) There may be others, but that's a start.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: Hi Emily,
TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism).
Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea: · Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived!
· It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later
· In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it.
Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind.
So my suggestion (yes, again!): · Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)
· X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.
I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”?
Thanks for hearing my out,
Alexander.berlin
From: Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here and transcript here.
An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3.
Kind regards, Emily
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi,
Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close).
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins)
2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins)
3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins)
4. AOB (5 mins)
If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards, Emily
Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear All I do not support Greg Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 7 Sep 2018, at 22:40, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
I also support Alexander Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Sep 2018, at 14:47, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Sorry I had to miss the call. I do want to add my support to Alexander's suggestion on establishing a category for cities of (x) size
Anybody willing to support my suggestion: · Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision) · X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both. · This provision could be included in the “non-capital cities” silo. Marita
On 9/5/2018 4:00 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: As we both are quite vocal on this topic I try to be short:
· First Come First Serve is the declared goal. Some want it already smack after the next round. Once that happens: there won’t be contention resolve mechanisms anymore – by definition! · The requirement to authenticate registrants: Yes! I agree with you – it’s a good thing! But in the realm of community priority applications you are forced to define the community very narrow – and then ONLY that narrowly defined group of entities is eligible to register domains! Imagine a brand selling stuff in the city – but has no presence there! They would not be eligible to register their brand.city domain. Unless you define the community quite broad – and my personal experience teaches me: DON’T! It might cost you your CPE. · The bad actor: They might not even see themselves as such. In the 2012 round ALL the generic namespace was up for grabs, PLUS: most players did not believe that city gTLDs would be profitable. This has changed: The best generic terms are now taken. Citiy gTLDs have proved to be profitable. Here the mechanics: VC money will be raised; and once cash is raised - strings will be chosen. Generic keywords are pretty much exhausted. City names make economic sense on several levels. If your operation model would be identical to that of “Donuts”: you won’t actively “market” your strings to anybody. You just push them out into the registrar channel. Why on earth would you care for “geo-use”? You do not! You just apply for the string, with NO INTENT AT ALL. This saves you the acquisition of the support letter – hence my formulation: “Non-geo use loophole”.
Moving on ……
Anybody willing to support my suggestion: · Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision) · X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both. · This provision could be included in the “non-capital cities” silo.
The current language in the 2012 AGB reads: An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if:
(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
Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! ..........
· ......... In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing ...............
“X” needs obviously to be defined. Some would like to see it at 50k people – others at over a Million. The lower the number – the less likely we find consensus. But the definition of the threshold is independent of the measure in itself. Let’s not get hung up on the exact number – let’s see whether the general CONCEPT finds agreement: that a sizeable city should be as well protected as a national subdivision or capital city! Setting “X” to 1 Million would be a balanced approach to at least protect those city communities that are likely to potentially fall victim to applicants that simply have no “intents” – and therefore don’t voice such intent in their application – hence avoid the looping-in of the city Government! The formulation “clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name….” really is very weak and simply INVITES to NOT have such “statements” in the application!
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 5:43 AM To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report
I think the Community Priority Evaluation survived the attempt at "hole poking" pretty much unscathed: Unless you've been to the future, nobody has any idea if or when the gTLD application process will move away from rounds. If it does, batching or some other process could still create contention sets. "First come, first served" may never come. It seems entirely appropriate for city-based gTLDs to authenticate registrants, whether or not they are community-based applications. "Open season" on registrations blows a hole in the concept of city-based gTLDs -- unless the only idea is to deliver Internet real estate to one preferred applicant, who can then exploit the gTLD however they please. If there are problems with the way Community Priority processes worked, it's our job to fix them -- for geo's and (elsewhere in the WG) non-geo's as well. I understand that avoiding it would be preferable to some, and that it's easier to avoid if its warts are left on, but I can't believe any disinterested participant would support that approach. Finally, the mythical "bad actor" that is the impetus for this suggestion seems to have no basis in reality. Are there any examples of this occurring in the prior round? Of course, just about every type of "bad actor" is remotely possible, but how likely is it?
Moving on...
While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander: extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime). Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision. Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule. A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!) There may be others, but that's a start.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: Hi Emily,
TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism).
Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea: · Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived!
· It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later
· In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it.
Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind.
So my suggestion (yes, again!): · Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)
· X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.
I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”?
Thanks for hearing my out,
Alexander.berlin
From: Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here and transcript here.
An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3.
Kind regards, Emily
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi,
Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close).
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins)
2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins)
3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins)
4. AOB (5 mins)
If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards, Emily
Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Rosalia ,jorge ,christopher and Alexander +1 Kavouss On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 10:41 PM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All I do not support Greg Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 7 Sep 2018, at 22:40, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
I also support Alexander Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Sep 2018, at 14:47, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Sorry I had to miss the call. I do want to add my support to Alexander's suggestion on establishing a category for cities of (x) size Anybody willing to support my suggestion:
· Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)
· X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.
· This provision could be included in the “non-capital cities” silo.
Marita
On 9/5/2018 4:00 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
As we both are quite vocal on this topic I try to be short:
· First Come First Serve is the declared goal. Some want it already smack after the next round. Once that happens: there won’t be contention resolve mechanisms anymore – by definition!
· The requirement to authenticate registrants: Yes! I agree with you – it’s a good thing! But in the realm of community priority applications you are forced to define the community very narrow – and then ONLY that narrowly defined group of entities is eligible to register domains! Imagine a brand selling stuff in the city – but has no presence there! They would not be eligible to register their brand.city domain. Unless you define the community quite broad – and my personal experience teaches me: DON’T! It might cost you your CPE.
· The bad actor: They might not even see themselves as such. In the 2012 round ALL the generic namespace was up for grabs, PLUS: most players did not believe that city gTLDs would be profitable. This has changed: The best generic terms are now taken. Citiy gTLDs have proved to be profitable. Here the mechanics: VC money will be raised; and once cash is raised - strings will be chosen. Generic keywords are pretty much exhausted. City names make economic sense on several levels. If your operation model would be identical to that of “Donuts”: you won’t actively “market” your strings to anybody. You just push them out into the registrar channel. Why on earth would you care for “geo-use”? You do not! You just apply for the string, with NO INTENT AT ALL. This saves you the acquisition of the support letter – hence my formulation: “Non-geo use loophole”.
Moving on ……
Anybody willing to support my suggestion:
· Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)
· X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.
· This provision could be included in the “non-capital cities” silo.
The current language in the 2012 AGB reads:
*An application for a city name will be subject to the*
*geographic names requirements (i.e., will require*
*documentation of support or non-objection from*
*the relevant governments or public authorities) if:*
*(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*
*Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! .......... *
· *.........* *In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing ...............*
“X” needs obviously to be defined. Some would like to see it at 50k people – others at over a Million. The lower the number – the less likely we find consensus. But the definition of the threshold is independent of the measure in itself. Let’s not get hung up on the exact number – let’s see whether the general CONCEPT finds agreement: that a sizeable city should be as well protected as a national subdivision or capital city! Setting “X” to 1 Million would be a balanced approach to at least protect those city communities that are likely to potentially fall victim to applicants that simply have no “intents” – and therefore don’t voice such intent in their application – hence avoid the looping-in of the city Government! The formulation “clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name….” really is very weak and simply INVITES to NOT have such “statements” in the application!
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Wednesday, September 05, 2018 5:43 AM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report
I think the Community Priority Evaluation survived the attempt at "hole poking" pretty much unscathed:
- Unless you've been to the future, nobody has any idea if or when the gTLD application process will move away from rounds. If it does, batching or some other process could still create contention sets. "First come, first served" may never come. - It seems entirely appropriate for city-based gTLDs to authenticate registrants, whether or not they are community-based applications. "Open season" on registrations blows a hole in the concept of city-based gTLDs -- unless the only idea is to deliver Internet real estate to one preferred applicant, who can then exploit the gTLD however they please. - If there are problems with the way Community Priority processes worked, it's our job to fix them -- for geo's and (elsewhere in the WG) non-geo's as well. I understand that avoiding it would be preferable to some, and that it's easier to avoid if its warts are left on, but I can't believe any disinterested participant would support that approach.
Finally, the mythical "bad actor" that is the impetus for this suggestion seems to have no basis in reality. Are there any examples of this occurring in the prior round? Of course, just about every type of "bad actor" is remotely possible, but how likely is it?
Moving on...
While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander:
- extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories - replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime). - Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision. - Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration - A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule. - A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!)
There may be others, but that's a start.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi Emily,
TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism).
Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea:
· Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived!
· It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later
· In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it.
Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind.
*So my suggestion (yes, again!):*
· *Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)*
· *X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.*
I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”?
Thanks for hearing my out,
Alexander.berlin
*From:* Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-08-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> and transcript here <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...>.
An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Reply-To: *"alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Date: *Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi,
Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close).
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Emily Barabas *Sent:* Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins)
2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins)
3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins)
4. AOB (5 mins)
If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards,
Emily
*Emily Barabas *| Policy Manager
*ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://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
I'll be short in response.... - First come, first served may be a "declared goal" for some participants. For others, it is not. It is still a contentious issue with a lack of consensus. So it is not "the declared goal." - If the community authentication process is a bad fit for geo-gTLDs, then let's adjust it, not use it as an excuse to reject the community route. If a "brand selling stuff in the city, but it has no presence there," can't register in that city domain, that may well be the right result and the right model anyway. I'm pretty sure quite a number of geo-gTLDs work that way (and some ccTLDs, too). - We can't base a major policy decision on a fable, "The Story of the Bad Actor Who Can't See Himself." This is a pile of inventions/assumptions without any fact/evidence basis. A number of these assumptions are incorrect: that "no intent at all" is the same thing as declaring that you do not intend to associate the gTLD with a geo-place; that Donuts does no marketing at all; that we are powerless to deal with the hypothetical problem of marketing non-geos as geos; or that gTLDs marketed by nobody will somehow go geo-viral. - But, thank you for more clearly defining what you think is the "loophole" -- non-geo-use gTLDs that turn back into geo-use gTLDs in practice. This would exclude the "brand"-type non-geo use case from the "loophole." It also excludes all "open" gTLDs being marketed in a non-geo way (e.g., .spa). If we really are trying to "close" a "loophole," we need to close only the loophole while preserving the non-geo use exception for legitimate non-geo applicants. Eliminating the non-geo use exception for some potential gTLDs is not "closing a loophole," it is "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." I suspect that for some, "closing the loophole" is just a smokescreen for gifting a number of potential gTLDs back to the exclusive control of governments and public authorities. - What you call a "loophole" is really intended as a *protection* for legitimate non-geo registrants. That protection needs to be preserved. And unlike the hypothetical sneaky applicant in the fable, there were actual applicants in the last round who either benefited from the non-geo-use protection, or should have benefited from it. Bottom line: the non-geo use pathway is a process that needs to be tweaked or refined -- not eliminated. (Of course, if we are looking for "loopholes" to "eliminate", there is one quite similar to "gTLDs registered as non-geos and then morphing back into geo-use": TLDs registered as ccTLDs that have morphed into non-geo use. These may not be within the WT5 remit, but they are a geo-related issue nonetheless. But that's a discussion for another time and place...) Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:00 AM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
As we both are quite vocal on this topic I try to be short:
· First Come First Serve is the declared goal. Some want it already smack after the next round. Once that happens: there won’t be contention resolve mechanisms anymore – by definition!
· The requirement to authenticate registrants: Yes! I agree with you – it’s a good thing! But in the realm of community priority applications you are forced to define the community very narrow – and then ONLY that narrowly defined group of entities is eligible to register domains! Imagine a brand selling stuff in the city – but has no presence there! They would not be eligible to register their brand.city domain. Unless you define the community quite broad – and my personal experience teaches me: DON’T! It might cost you your CPE.
· The bad actor: They might not even see themselves as such. In the 2012 round ALL the generic namespace was up for grabs, PLUS: most players did not believe that city gTLDs would be profitable. This has changed: The best generic terms are now taken. Citiy gTLDs have proved to be profitable. Here the mechanics: VC money will be raised; and once cash is raised - strings will be chosen. Generic keywords are pretty much exhausted. City names make economic sense on several levels. If your operation model would be identical to that of “Donuts”: you won’t actively “market” your strings to anybody. You just push them out into the registrar channel. Why on earth would you care for “geo-use”? You do not! You just apply for the string, with NO INTENT AT ALL. This saves you the acquisition of the support letter – hence my formulation: “Non-geo use loophole”.
Moving on ……
Anybody willing to support my suggestion:
· Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)
· X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.
· This provision could be included in the “non-capital cities” silo.
The current language in the 2012 AGB reads:
*An application for a city name will be subject to the*
*geographic names requirements (i.e., will require*
*documentation of support or non-objection from*
*the relevant governments or public authorities) if:*
*(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*
The (a) portion implies the so called “non-geo use provision”. So my suggestion would be to change it to:
*(a) It is **either **clear from applicant statements within the*
*application that the applicant will use the TLD*
*primarily for purposes associated with the city*
*name **or the city metro area population is exceeding a threshold of X*
“X” needs obviously to be defined. Some would like to see it at 50k people – others at over a Million. The lower the number – the less likely we find consensus. But the definition of the threshold is independent of the measure in itself. Let’s not get hung up on the exact number – let’s see whether the general CONCEPT finds agreement: that a sizeable city should be as well protected as a national subdivision or capital city! Setting “X” to 1 Million would be a balanced approach to at least protect those city communities that are likely to potentially fall victim to applicants that simply have no “intents” – and therefore don’t voice such intent in their application – hence avoid the looping-in of the city Government! The formulation “clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name….” really is very weak and simply INVITES to NOT have such “statements” in the application!
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, September 05, 2018 5:43 AM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report
I think the Community Priority Evaluation survived the attempt at "hole poking" pretty much unscathed:
- Unless you've been to the future, nobody has any idea if or when the gTLD application process will move away from rounds. If it does, batching or some other process could still create contention sets. "First come, first served" may never come. - It seems entirely appropriate for city-based gTLDs to authenticate registrants, whether or not they are community-based applications. "Open season" on registrations blows a hole in the concept of city-based gTLDs -- unless the only idea is to deliver Internet real estate to one preferred applicant, who can then exploit the gTLD however they please. - If there are problems with the way Community Priority processes worked, it's our job to fix them -- for geo's and (elsewhere in the WG) non-geo's as well. I understand that avoiding it would be preferable to some, and that it's easier to avoid if its warts are left on, but I can't believe any disinterested participant would support that approach.
Finally, the mythical "bad actor" that is the impetus for this suggestion seems to have no basis in reality. Are there any examples of this occurring in the prior round? Of course, just about every type of "bad actor" is remotely possible, but how likely is it?
Moving on...
While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander:
- extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories - replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime). - Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision. - Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration - A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule. - A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!)
There may be others, but that's a start.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi Emily,
TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism).
Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea:
· Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived!
· It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later
· In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it.
Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind.
*So my suggestion (yes, again!):*
· *Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)*
· *X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.*
I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”?
Thanks for hearing my out,
Alexander.berlin
*From:* Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-08-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> and transcript here <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...>.
An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Reply-To: *"alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Date: *Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi,
Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close).
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Emily Barabas *Sent:* Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins)
2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins)
3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins)
4. AOB (5 mins)
If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards,
Emily
*Emily Barabas *| Policy Manager
*ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
The argument submitted is totally invalid contradictory and amalgamation of vêtions passage from 200 of thousands of terms , phrases and passages which are irrelevant to the issue. The submitters mixed up many things and reiterate her hostility against GAC which is not a new sentiments I do not know who she protects She talks about invoices innovation? What innovation ? Is it just commercial interests that deprive the 120 million Persian language speaking when they talk about Duchambeh ? What role the terms freedom of speech pays here that the citizen of a country should abondons their legitimate tights if they customs, culture , historical heritage, identity for the sake of vague term “ innovation” created by commercial people defended by someone from non commercial stakeholder group. The words becomes strange when ad she referred to herself as “ finger of god” so aggressively and merciless attacks citizens of countries defending commercial interest. Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Sep 2018, at 07:25, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll be short in response.... First come, first served may be a "declared goal" for some participants. For others, it is not. It is still a contentious issue with a lack of consensus. So it is not "the declared goal." If the community authentication process is a bad fit for geo-gTLDs, then let's adjust it, not use it as an excuse to reject the community route. If a "brand selling stuff in the city, but it has no presence there," can't register in that city domain, that may well be the right result and the right model anyway. I'm pretty sure quite a number of geo-gTLDs work that way (and some ccTLDs, too). We can't base a major policy decision on a fable, "The Story of the Bad Actor Who Can't See Himself." This is a pile of inventions/assumptions without any fact/evidence basis. A number of these assumptions are incorrect: that "no intent at all" is the same thing as declaring that you do not intend to associate the gTLD with a geo-place; that Donuts does no marketing at all; that we are powerless to deal with the hypothetical problem of marketing non-geos as geos; or that gTLDs marketed by nobody will somehow go geo-viral. But, thank you for more clearly defining what you think is the "loophole" -- non-geo-use gTLDs that turn back into geo-use gTLDs in practice. This would exclude the "brand"-type non-geo use case from the "loophole." It also excludes all "open" gTLDs being marketed in a non-geo way (e.g., .spa). If we really are trying to "close" a "loophole," we need to close only the loophole while preserving the non-geo use exception for legitimate non-geo applicants. Eliminating the non-geo use exception for some potential gTLDs is not "closing a loophole," it is "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." I suspect that for some, "closing the loophole" is just a smokescreen for gifting a number of potential gTLDs back to the exclusive control of governments and public authorities. What you call a "loophole" is really intended as a protection for legitimate non-geo registrants. That protection needs to be preserved. And unlike the hypothetical sneaky applicant in the fable, there were actual applicants in the last round who either benefited from the non-geo-use protection, or should have benefited from it. Bottom line: the non-geo use pathway is a process that needs to be tweaked or refined -- not eliminated.
(Of course, if we are looking for "loopholes" to "eliminate", there is one quite similar to "gTLDs registered as non-geos and then morphing back into geo-use": TLDs registered as ccTLDs that have morphed into non-geo use. These may not be within the WT5 remit, but they are a geo-related issue nonetheless. But that's a discussion for another time and place...)
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:00 AM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: As we both are quite vocal on this topic I try to be short:
· First Come First Serve is the declared goal. Some want it already smack after the next round. Once that happens: there won’t be contention resolve mechanisms anymore – by definition!
· The requirement to authenticate registrants: Yes! I agree with you – it’s a good thing! But in the realm of community priority applications you are forced to define the community very narrow – and then ONLY that narrowly defined group of entities is eligible to register domains! Imagine a brand selling stuff in the city – but has no presence there! They would not be eligible to register their brand.city domain. Unless you define the community quite broad – and my personal experience teaches me: DON’T! It might cost you your CPE.
· The bad actor: They might not even see themselves as such. In the 2012 round ALL the generic namespace was up for grabs, PLUS: most players did not believe that city gTLDs would be profitable. This has changed: The best generic terms are now taken. Citiy gTLDs have proved to be profitable. Here the mechanics: VC money will be raised; and once cash is raised - strings will be chosen. Generic keywords are pretty much exhausted. City names make economic sense on several levels. If your operation model would be identical to that of “Donuts”: you won’t actively “market” your strings to anybody. You just push them out into the registrar channel. Why on earth would you care for “geo-use”? You do not! You just apply for the string, with NO INTENT AT ALL. This saves you the acquisition of the support letter – hence my formulation: “Non-geo use loophole”.
Moving on ……
Anybody willing to support my suggestion:
· Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)
· X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.
· This provision could be included in the “non-capital cities” silo.
The current language in the 2012 AGB reads:
An application for a city name will be subject to the
geographic names requirements (i.e., will require
documentation of support or non-objection from
the relevant governments or public authorities) if:
(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
The (a) portion implies the so called “non-geo use provision”. So my suggestion would be to change it to:
(a) It is either clear from applicant statements within the
application that the applicant will use the TLD
primarily for purposes associated with the city
name or the city metro area population is exceeding a threshold of X
“X” needs obviously to be defined. Some would like to see it at 50k people – others at over a Million. The lower the number – the less likely we find consensus. But the definition of the threshold is independent of the measure in itself. Let’s not get hung up on the exact number – let’s see whether the general CONCEPT finds agreement: that a sizeable city should be as well protected as a national subdivision or capital city! Setting “X” to 1 Million would be a balanced approach to at least protect those city communities that are likely to potentially fall victim to applicants that simply have no “intents” – and therefore don’t voice such intent in their application – hence avoid the looping-in of the city Government! The formulation “clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name….” really is very weak and simply INVITES to NOT have such “statements” in the application!
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 5:43 AM To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report
I think the Community Priority Evaluation survived the attempt at "hole poking" pretty much unscathed:
Unless you've been to the future, nobody has any idea if or when the gTLD application process will move away from rounds. If it does, batching or some other process could still create contention sets. "First come, first served" may never come. It seems entirely appropriate for city-based gTLDs to authenticate registrants, whether or not they are community-based applications. "Open season" on registrations blows a hole in the concept of city-based gTLDs -- unless the only idea is to deliver Internet real estate to one preferred applicant, who can then exploit the gTLD however they please. If there are problems with the way Community Priority processes worked, it's our job to fix them -- for geo's and (elsewhere in the WG) non-geo's as well. I understand that avoiding it would be preferable to some, and that it's easier to avoid if its warts are left on, but I can't believe any disinterested participant would support that approach. Finally, the mythical "bad actor" that is the impetus for this suggestion seems to have no basis in reality. Are there any examples of this occurring in the prior round? Of course, just about every type of "bad actor" is remotely possible, but how likely is it?
Moving on...
While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander:
extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime). Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision. Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule. A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!) There may be others, but that's a start.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi Emily,
TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism).
Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea:
· Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived!
· It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later
· In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it.
Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind.
So my suggestion (yes, again!):
· Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)
· X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.
I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”?
Thanks for hearing my out,
Alexander.berlin
From: Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here and transcript here.
An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3.
Kind regards,
Emily
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi,
Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close).
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins)
2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins)
3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins)
4. AOB (5 mins)
If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards,
Emily
Emily Barabas | Policy Manager
ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear All, I am sorry for some typo that inadvertently occurred when I replied through my Iphone. Please kindly ignor it and read it void Here is the corrected version “ The argument submitted relating to use of Duchanbe is totally invalid, contradictory as it is amalgamation of various irrelevant passages ,terms which we have heard having no relation with the issue under discussion The submitter of the argument mixed up many things and reiterate her hostility against GAC which is not a new sentiments as she demonstrated such animosity many times in the past .In fact this issue has nothing to do with GAC, It relates to the citizen of a country or countries which wish to preserve their legitimate rights, their traditions, customs, cultural heritage, social believe and historical annotation as well as their identity. It is a big mistake that those citizens give up or abandon such traditions, customs, cultural heritage , social believe and historical annotation as well as their identity for the sake of vague term “ innovation” created by commercial people defended by someone from noncommercial stakeholder group. I do not know what is being protected. Perhaps merely “Commercial Interest “ Reference was made to innovation? What innovation? Is it just commercial interests that pushed these citizens to be deprived from their fundamental rights What role the terms freedom of speech plays here that the citizen of a country should abandon their legitimate rights associated with their traditions, customs, cultural heritage , social believe and historical annotation as well as their identity if they customs, cultural heritage, their past historical heritage, identity for the sake of vague term “ innovation” created by commercial people defended by someone from noncommercial stakeholder group. The words becomes strange when someone so aggressively and so mercilesslly attacks citizens of countries defending commercial interest. Regards Kavouss On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 10:31 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
The argument submitted is totally invalid contradictory and amalgamation of vêtions passage from 200 of thousands of terms , phrases and passages which are irrelevant to the issue. The submitters mixed up many things and reiterate her hostility against GAC which is not a new sentiments I do not know who she protects She talks about invoices innovation? What innovation ? Is it just commercial interests that deprive the 120 million Persian language speaking when they talk about Duchambeh ? What role the terms freedom of speech pays here that the citizen of a country should abondons their legitimate tights if they customs, culture , historical heritage, identity for the sake of vague term “ innovation” created by commercial people defended by someone from non commercial stakeholder group. The words becomes strange when ad she referred to herself as “ finger of god” so aggressively and merciless attacks citizens of countries defending commercial interest. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Sep 2018, at 07:25, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll be short in response....
- First come, first served may be a "declared goal" for some participants. For others, it is not. It is still a contentious issue with a lack of consensus. So it is not "the declared goal." - If the community authentication process is a bad fit for geo-gTLDs, then let's adjust it, not use it as an excuse to reject the community route. If a "brand selling stuff in the city, but it has no presence there," can't register in that city domain, that may well be the right result and the right model anyway. I'm pretty sure quite a number of geo-gTLDs work that way (and some ccTLDs, too). - We can't base a major policy decision on a fable, "The Story of the Bad Actor Who Can't See Himself." This is a pile of inventions/assumptions without any fact/evidence basis. A number of these assumptions are incorrect: that "no intent at all" is the same thing as declaring that you do not intend to associate the gTLD with a geo-place; that Donuts does no marketing at all; that we are powerless to deal with the hypothetical problem of marketing non-geos as geos; or that gTLDs marketed by nobody will somehow go geo-viral. - But, thank you for more clearly defining what you think is the "loophole" -- non-geo-use gTLDs that turn back into geo-use gTLDs in practice. This would exclude the "brand"-type non-geo use case from the "loophole." It also excludes all "open" gTLDs being marketed in a non-geo way (e.g., .spa). If we really are trying to "close" a "loophole," we need to close only the loophole while preserving the non-geo use exception for legitimate non-geo applicants. Eliminating the non-geo use exception for some potential gTLDs is not "closing a loophole," it is "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." I suspect that for some, "closing the loophole" is just a smokescreen for gifting a number of potential gTLDs back to the exclusive control of governments and public authorities. - What you call a "loophole" is really intended as a *protection* for legitimate non-geo registrants. That protection needs to be preserved. And unlike the hypothetical sneaky applicant in the fable, there were actual applicants in the last round who either benefited from the non-geo-use protection, or should have benefited from it.
Bottom line: the non-geo use pathway is a process that needs to be tweaked or refined -- not eliminated.
(Of course, if we are looking for "loopholes" to "eliminate", there is one quite similar to "gTLDs registered as non-geos and then morphing back into geo-use": TLDs registered as ccTLDs that have morphed into non-geo use. These may not be within the WT5 remit, but they are a geo-related issue nonetheless. But that's a discussion for another time and place...)
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:00 AM Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
As we both are quite vocal on this topic I try to be short:
· First Come First Serve is the declared goal. Some want it already smack after the next round. Once that happens: there won’t be contention resolve mechanisms anymore – by definition!
· The requirement to authenticate registrants: Yes! I agree with you – it’s a good thing! But in the realm of community priority applications you are forced to define the community very narrow – and then ONLY that narrowly defined group of entities is eligible to register domains! Imagine a brand selling stuff in the city – but has no presence there! They would not be eligible to register their brand.city domain. Unless you define the community quite broad – and my personal experience teaches me: DON’T! It might cost you your CPE.
· The bad actor: They might not even see themselves as such. In the 2012 round ALL the generic namespace was up for grabs, PLUS: most players did not believe that city gTLDs would be profitable. This has changed: The best generic terms are now taken. Citiy gTLDs have proved to be profitable. Here the mechanics: VC money will be raised; and once cash is raised - strings will be chosen. Generic keywords are pretty much exhausted. City names make economic sense on several levels. If your operation model would be identical to that of “Donuts”: you won’t actively “market” your strings to anybody. You just push them out into the registrar channel. Why on earth would you care for “geo-use”? You do not! You just apply for the string, with NO INTENT AT ALL. This saves you the acquisition of the support letter – hence my formulation: “Non-geo use loophole”.
Moving on ……
Anybody willing to support my suggestion:
· Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)
· X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.
· This provision could be included in the “non-capital cities” silo.
The current language in the 2012 AGB reads:
*An application for a city name will be subject to the*
*geographic names requirements (i.e., will require*
*documentation of support or non-objection from*
*the relevant governments or public authorities) if:*
*(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*
The (a) portion implies the so called “non-geo use provision”. So my suggestion would be to change it to:
*(a) It is **either **clear from applicant statements within the*
*application that the applicant will use the TLD*
*primarily for purposes associated with the city*
*name **or the city metro area population is exceeding a threshold of X*
“X” needs obviously to be defined. Some would like to see it at 50k people – others at over a Million. The lower the number – the less likely we find consensus. But the definition of the threshold is independent of the measure in itself. Let’s not get hung up on the exact number – let’s see whether the general CONCEPT finds agreement: that a sizeable city should be as well protected as a national subdivision or capital city! Setting “X” to 1 Million would be a balanced approach to at least protect those city communities that are likely to potentially fall victim to applicants that simply have no “intents” – and therefore don’t voice such intent in their application – hence avoid the looping-in of the city Government! The formulation “clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name….” really is very weak and simply INVITES to NOT have such “statements” in the application!
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, September 05, 2018 5:43 AM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report
I think the Community Priority Evaluation survived the attempt at "hole poking" pretty much unscathed:
- Unless you've been to the future, nobody has any idea if or when the gTLD application process will move away from rounds. If it does, batching or some other process could still create contention sets. "First come, first served" may never come. - It seems entirely appropriate for city-based gTLDs to authenticate registrants, whether or not they are community-based applications. "Open season" on registrations blows a hole in the concept of city-based gTLDs -- unless the only idea is to deliver Internet real estate to one preferred applicant, who can then exploit the gTLD however they please. - If there are problems with the way Community Priority processes worked, it's our job to fix them -- for geo's and (elsewhere in the WG) non-geo's as well. I understand that avoiding it would be preferable to some, and that it's easier to avoid if its warts are left on, but I can't believe any disinterested participant would support that approach.
Finally, the mythical "bad actor" that is the impetus for this suggestion seems to have no basis in reality. Are there any examples of this occurring in the prior round? Of course, just about every type of "bad actor" is remotely possible, but how likely is it?
Moving on...
While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander:
- extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories - replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime). - Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision. - Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration - A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule. - A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!)
There may be others, but that's a start.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi Emily,
TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism).
Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea:
· Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived!
· It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later
· In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it.
Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind.
*So my suggestion (yes, again!):*
· *Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)*
· *X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.*
I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”?
Thanks for hearing my out,
Alexander.berlin
*From:* Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-08-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> and transcript here <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...>.
An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Reply-To: *"alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Date: *Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi,
Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close).
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Emily Barabas *Sent:* Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins)
2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins)
3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins)
4. AOB (5 mins)
If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards,
Emily
*Emily Barabas *| Policy Manager
*ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
I am not going to respond to the message below and subject people of this group to bickering, most know that the accusations are baseless anyway. Farzaneh On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 6:49 AM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, I am sorry for some typo that inadvertently occurred when I replied through my Iphone. Please kindly ignor it and read it void
Here is the corrected version
“
The argument submitted relating to use of Duchanbe is totally invalid, contradictory as it is amalgamation of various irrelevant passages ,terms which we have heard having no relation with the issue under discussion
The submitter of the argument mixed up many things and reiterate her hostility against GAC which is not a new sentiments as she demonstrated such animosity many times in the past .In fact this issue has nothing to do with GAC, It relates to the citizen of a country or countries which wish to preserve their legitimate rights, their traditions, customs, cultural heritage, social believe and historical annotation as well as their identity. It is a big mistake that those citizens give up or abandon such traditions, customs, cultural heritage , social believe and historical annotation as well as their identity for the sake of vague term “ innovation” created by commercial people defended by someone from noncommercial stakeholder group.
I do not know what is being protected. Perhaps merely “Commercial Interest “
Reference was made to innovation?
What innovation?
Is it just commercial interests that pushed these citizens to be deprived from their fundamental rights
What role the terms freedom of speech plays here that the citizen of a country should abandon their legitimate rights associated with their traditions, customs, cultural heritage , social believe and historical annotation as well as their identity if they customs, cultural heritage, their past historical heritage, identity for the sake of vague term “ innovation” created by commercial people defended by someone from noncommercial stakeholder group.
The words becomes strange when someone so aggressively and so mercilesslly attacks citizens of countries defending commercial interest.
Regards
Kavouss
On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 10:31 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
The argument submitted is totally invalid contradictory and amalgamation of vêtions passage from 200 of thousands of terms , phrases and passages which are irrelevant to the issue. The submitters mixed up many things and reiterate her hostility against GAC which is not a new sentiments I do not know who she protects She talks about invoices innovation? What innovation ? Is it just commercial interests that deprive the 120 million Persian language speaking when they talk about Duchambeh ? What role the terms freedom of speech pays here that the citizen of a country should abondons their legitimate tights if they customs, culture , historical heritage, identity for the sake of vague term “ innovation” created by commercial people defended by someone from non commercial stakeholder group. The words becomes strange when ad she referred to herself as “ finger of god” so aggressively and merciless attacks citizens of countries defending commercial interest. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Sep 2018, at 07:25, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll be short in response....
- First come, first served may be a "declared goal" for some participants. For others, it is not. It is still a contentious issue with a lack of consensus. So it is not "the declared goal." - If the community authentication process is a bad fit for geo-gTLDs, then let's adjust it, not use it as an excuse to reject the community route. If a "brand selling stuff in the city, but it has no presence there," can't register in that city domain, that may well be the right result and the right model anyway. I'm pretty sure quite a number of geo-gTLDs work that way (and some ccTLDs, too). - We can't base a major policy decision on a fable, "The Story of the Bad Actor Who Can't See Himself." This is a pile of inventions/assumptions without any fact/evidence basis. A number of these assumptions are incorrect: that "no intent at all" is the same thing as declaring that you do not intend to associate the gTLD with a geo-place; that Donuts does no marketing at all; that we are powerless to deal with the hypothetical problem of marketing non-geos as geos; or that gTLDs marketed by nobody will somehow go geo-viral. - But, thank you for more clearly defining what you think is the "loophole" -- non-geo-use gTLDs that turn back into geo-use gTLDs in practice. This would exclude the "brand"-type non-geo use case from the "loophole." It also excludes all "open" gTLDs being marketed in a non-geo way (e.g., .spa). If we really are trying to "close" a "loophole," we need to close only the loophole while preserving the non-geo use exception for legitimate non-geo applicants. Eliminating the non-geo use exception for some potential gTLDs is not "closing a loophole," it is "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." I suspect that for some, "closing the loophole" is just a smokescreen for gifting a number of potential gTLDs back to the exclusive control of governments and public authorities. - What you call a "loophole" is really intended as a *protection* for legitimate non-geo registrants. That protection needs to be preserved. And unlike the hypothetical sneaky applicant in the fable, there were actual applicants in the last round who either benefited from the non-geo-use protection, or should have benefited from it.
Bottom line: the non-geo use pathway is a process that needs to be tweaked or refined -- not eliminated.
(Of course, if we are looking for "loopholes" to "eliminate", there is one quite similar to "gTLDs registered as non-geos and then morphing back into geo-use": TLDs registered as ccTLDs that have morphed into non-geo use. These may not be within the WT5 remit, but they are a geo-related issue nonetheless. But that's a discussion for another time and place...)
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:00 AM Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
As we both are quite vocal on this topic I try to be short:
· First Come First Serve is the declared goal. Some want it already smack after the next round. Once that happens: there won’t be contention resolve mechanisms anymore – by definition!
· The requirement to authenticate registrants: Yes! I agree with you – it’s a good thing! But in the realm of community priority applications you are forced to define the community very narrow – and then ONLY that narrowly defined group of entities is eligible to register domains! Imagine a brand selling stuff in the city – but has no presence there! They would not be eligible to register their brand.city domain. Unless you define the community quite broad – and my personal experience teaches me: DON’T! It might cost you your CPE.
· The bad actor: They might not even see themselves as such. In the 2012 round ALL the generic namespace was up for grabs, PLUS: most players did not believe that city gTLDs would be profitable. This has changed: The best generic terms are now taken. Citiy gTLDs have proved to be profitable. Here the mechanics: VC money will be raised; and once cash is raised - strings will be chosen. Generic keywords are pretty much exhausted. City names make economic sense on several levels. If your operation model would be identical to that of “Donuts”: you won’t actively “market” your strings to anybody. You just push them out into the registrar channel. Why on earth would you care for “geo-use”? You do not! You just apply for the string, with NO INTENT AT ALL. This saves you the acquisition of the support letter – hence my formulation: “Non-geo use loophole”.
Moving on ……
Anybody willing to support my suggestion:
· Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)
· X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.
· This provision could be included in the “non-capital cities” silo.
The current language in the 2012 AGB reads:
*An application for a city name will be subject to the*
*geographic names requirements (i.e., will require*
*documentation of support or non-objection from*
*the relevant governments or public authorities) if:*
*(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*
The (a) portion implies the so called “non-geo use provision”. So my suggestion would be to change it to:
*(a) It is **either **clear from applicant statements within the*
*application that the applicant will use the TLD*
*primarily for purposes associated with the city*
*name **or the city metro area population is exceeding a threshold of X*
“X” needs obviously to be defined. Some would like to see it at 50k people – others at over a Million. The lower the number – the less likely we find consensus. But the definition of the threshold is independent of the measure in itself. Let’s not get hung up on the exact number – let’s see whether the general CONCEPT finds agreement: that a sizeable city should be as well protected as a national subdivision or capital city! Setting “X” to 1 Million would be a balanced approach to at least protect those city communities that are likely to potentially fall victim to applicants that simply have no “intents” – and therefore don’t voice such intent in their application – hence avoid the looping-in of the city Government! The formulation “clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name….” really is very weak and simply INVITES to NOT have such “statements” in the application!
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, September 05, 2018 5:43 AM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report
I think the Community Priority Evaluation survived the attempt at "hole poking" pretty much unscathed:
- Unless you've been to the future, nobody has any idea if or when the gTLD application process will move away from rounds. If it does, batching or some other process could still create contention sets. "First come, first served" may never come. - It seems entirely appropriate for city-based gTLDs to authenticate registrants, whether or not they are community-based applications. "Open season" on registrations blows a hole in the concept of city-based gTLDs -- unless the only idea is to deliver Internet real estate to one preferred applicant, who can then exploit the gTLD however they please. - If there are problems with the way Community Priority processes worked, it's our job to fix them -- for geo's and (elsewhere in the WG) non-geo's as well. I understand that avoiding it would be preferable to some, and that it's easier to avoid if its warts are left on, but I can't believe any disinterested participant would support that approach.
Finally, the mythical "bad actor" that is the impetus for this suggestion seems to have no basis in reality. Are there any examples of this occurring in the prior round? Of course, just about every type of "bad actor" is remotely possible, but how likely is it?
Moving on...
While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander:
- extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories - replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime). - Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision. - Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration - A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule. - A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!)
There may be others, but that's a start.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi Emily,
TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism).
Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea:
· Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived!
· It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later
· In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it.
Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind.
*So my suggestion (yes, again!):*
· *Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)*
· *X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.*
I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”?
Thanks for hearing my out,
Alexander.berlin
*From:* Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-08-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> and transcript here <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...>.
An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Reply-To: *"alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Date: *Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi,
Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close).
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Emily Barabas *Sent:* Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins)
2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins)
3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins)
4. AOB (5 mins)
If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards,
Emily
*Emily Barabas *| Policy Manager
*ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
OK. You are free to reply or not .There was no accusations at all . On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 4:48 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:
I am not going to respond to the message below and subject people of this group to bickering, most know that the accusations are baseless anyway.
Farzaneh
On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 6:49 AM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, I am sorry for some typo that inadvertently occurred when I replied through my Iphone. Please kindly ignor it and read it void
Here is the corrected version
“
The argument submitted relating to use of Duchanbe is totally invalid, contradictory as it is amalgamation of various irrelevant passages ,terms which we have heard having no relation with the issue under discussion
The submitter of the argument mixed up many things and reiterate her hostility against GAC which is not a new sentiments as she demonstrated such animosity many times in the past .In fact this issue has nothing to do with GAC, It relates to the citizen of a country or countries which wish to preserve their legitimate rights, their traditions, customs, cultural heritage, social believe and historical annotation as well as their identity. It is a big mistake that those citizens give up or abandon such traditions, customs, cultural heritage , social believe and historical annotation as well as their identity for the sake of vague term “ innovation” created by commercial people defended by someone from noncommercial stakeholder group.
I do not know what is being protected. Perhaps merely “Commercial Interest “
Reference was made to innovation?
What innovation?
Is it just commercial interests that pushed these citizens to be deprived from their fundamental rights
What role the terms freedom of speech plays here that the citizen of a country should abandon their legitimate rights associated with their traditions, customs, cultural heritage , social believe and historical annotation as well as their identity if they customs, cultural heritage, their past historical heritage, identity for the sake of vague term “ innovation” created by commercial people defended by someone from noncommercial stakeholder group.
The words becomes strange when someone so aggressively and so mercilesslly attacks citizens of countries defending commercial interest.
Regards
Kavouss
On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 10:31 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
The argument submitted is totally invalid contradictory and amalgamation of vêtions passage from 200 of thousands of terms , phrases and passages which are irrelevant to the issue. The submitters mixed up many things and reiterate her hostility against GAC which is not a new sentiments I do not know who she protects She talks about invoices innovation? What innovation ? Is it just commercial interests that deprive the 120 million Persian language speaking when they talk about Duchambeh ? What role the terms freedom of speech pays here that the citizen of a country should abondons their legitimate tights if they customs, culture , historical heritage, identity for the sake of vague term “ innovation” created by commercial people defended by someone from non commercial stakeholder group. The words becomes strange when ad she referred to herself as “ finger of god” so aggressively and merciless attacks citizens of countries defending commercial interest. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Sep 2018, at 07:25, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll be short in response....
- First come, first served may be a "declared goal" for some participants. For others, it is not. It is still a contentious issue with a lack of consensus. So it is not "the declared goal." - If the community authentication process is a bad fit for geo-gTLDs, then let's adjust it, not use it as an excuse to reject the community route. If a "brand selling stuff in the city, but it has no presence there," can't register in that city domain, that may well be the right result and the right model anyway. I'm pretty sure quite a number of geo-gTLDs work that way (and some ccTLDs, too). - We can't base a major policy decision on a fable, "The Story of the Bad Actor Who Can't See Himself." This is a pile of inventions/assumptions without any fact/evidence basis. A number of these assumptions are incorrect: that "no intent at all" is the same thing as declaring that you do not intend to associate the gTLD with a geo-place; that Donuts does no marketing at all; that we are powerless to deal with the hypothetical problem of marketing non-geos as geos; or that gTLDs marketed by nobody will somehow go geo-viral. - But, thank you for more clearly defining what you think is the "loophole" -- non-geo-use gTLDs that turn back into geo-use gTLDs in practice. This would exclude the "brand"-type non-geo use case from the "loophole." It also excludes all "open" gTLDs being marketed in a non-geo way (e.g., .spa). If we really are trying to "close" a "loophole," we need to close only the loophole while preserving the non-geo use exception for legitimate non-geo applicants. Eliminating the non-geo use exception for some potential gTLDs is not "closing a loophole," it is "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." I suspect that for some, "closing the loophole" is just a smokescreen for gifting a number of potential gTLDs back to the exclusive control of governments and public authorities. - What you call a "loophole" is really intended as a *protection* for legitimate non-geo registrants. That protection needs to be preserved. And unlike the hypothetical sneaky applicant in the fable, there were actual applicants in the last round who either benefited from the non-geo-use protection, or should have benefited from it.
Bottom line: the non-geo use pathway is a process that needs to be tweaked or refined -- not eliminated.
(Of course, if we are looking for "loopholes" to "eliminate", there is one quite similar to "gTLDs registered as non-geos and then morphing back into geo-use": TLDs registered as ccTLDs that have morphed into non-geo use. These may not be within the WT5 remit, but they are a geo-related issue nonetheless. But that's a discussion for another time and place...)
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:00 AM Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
As we both are quite vocal on this topic I try to be short:
· First Come First Serve is the declared goal. Some want it already smack after the next round. Once that happens: there won’t be contention resolve mechanisms anymore – by definition!
· The requirement to authenticate registrants: Yes! I agree with you – it’s a good thing! But in the realm of community priority applications you are forced to define the community very narrow – and then ONLY that narrowly defined group of entities is eligible to register domains! Imagine a brand selling stuff in the city – but has no presence there! They would not be eligible to register their brand.city domain. Unless you define the community quite broad – and my personal experience teaches me: DON’T! It might cost you your CPE.
· The bad actor: They might not even see themselves as such. In the 2012 round ALL the generic namespace was up for grabs, PLUS: most players did not believe that city gTLDs would be profitable. This has changed: The best generic terms are now taken. Citiy gTLDs have proved to be profitable. Here the mechanics: VC money will be raised; and once cash is raised - strings will be chosen. Generic keywords are pretty much exhausted. City names make economic sense on several levels. If your operation model would be identical to that of “Donuts”: you won’t actively “market” your strings to anybody. You just push them out into the registrar channel. Why on earth would you care for “geo-use”? You do not! You just apply for the string, with NO INTENT AT ALL. This saves you the acquisition of the support letter – hence my formulation: “Non-geo use loophole”.
Moving on ……
Anybody willing to support my suggestion:
· Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)
· X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.
· This provision could be included in the “non-capital cities” silo.
The current language in the 2012 AGB reads:
*An application for a city name will be subject to the*
*geographic names requirements (i.e., will require*
*documentation of support or non-objection from*
*the relevant governments or public authorities) if:*
*(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*
The (a) portion implies the so called “non-geo use provision”. So my suggestion would be to change it to:
*(a) It is **either **clear from applicant statements within the*
*application that the applicant will use the TLD*
*primarily for purposes associated with the city*
*name **or the city metro area population is exceeding a threshold of X*
“X” needs obviously to be defined. Some would like to see it at 50k people – others at over a Million. The lower the number – the less likely we find consensus. But the definition of the threshold is independent of the measure in itself. Let’s not get hung up on the exact number – let’s see whether the general CONCEPT finds agreement: that a sizeable city should be as well protected as a national subdivision or capital city! Setting “X” to 1 Million would be a balanced approach to at least protect those city communities that are likely to potentially fall victim to applicants that simply have no “intents” – and therefore don’t voice such intent in their application – hence avoid the looping-in of the city Government! The formulation “clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name….” really is very weak and simply INVITES to NOT have such “statements” in the application!
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, September 05, 2018 5:43 AM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report
I think the Community Priority Evaluation survived the attempt at "hole poking" pretty much unscathed:
- Unless you've been to the future, nobody has any idea if or when the gTLD application process will move away from rounds. If it does, batching or some other process could still create contention sets. "First come, first served" may never come. - It seems entirely appropriate for city-based gTLDs to authenticate registrants, whether or not they are community-based applications. "Open season" on registrations blows a hole in the concept of city-based gTLDs -- unless the only idea is to deliver Internet real estate to one preferred applicant, who can then exploit the gTLD however they please. - If there are problems with the way Community Priority processes worked, it's our job to fix them -- for geo's and (elsewhere in the WG) non-geo's as well. I understand that avoiding it would be preferable to some, and that it's easier to avoid if its warts are left on, but I can't believe any disinterested participant would support that approach.
Finally, the mythical "bad actor" that is the impetus for this suggestion seems to have no basis in reality. Are there any examples of this occurring in the prior round? Of course, just about every type of "bad actor" is remotely possible, but how likely is it?
Moving on...
While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander:
- extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories - replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime). - Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision. - Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration - A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule. - A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!)
There may be others, but that's a start.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi Emily,
TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism).
Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea:
· Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived!
· It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later
· In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it.
Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind.
*So my suggestion (yes, again!):*
· *Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)*
· *X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.*
I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”?
Thanks for hearing my out,
Alexander.berlin
*From:* Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-08-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> and transcript here <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...>.
An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Reply-To: *"alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Date: *Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi,
Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close).
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Emily Barabas *Sent:* Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins)
2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins)
3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins)
4. AOB (5 mins)
If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards,
Emily
*Emily Barabas *| Policy Manager
*ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Your message is a clear evidence of the inappropriate impression of GAC . It was not accusation . During the last several years such reactions vis a vis GAC was very often demonstrated . It necessary transcription of CCWG work stream 1 . Sent from my iPhone
On 9 Sep 2018, at 16:47, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:
I am not going to respond to the message below and subject people of this group to bickering, most know that the accusations are baseless anyway.
Farzaneh
On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 6:49 AM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear All, I am sorry for some typo that inadvertently occurred when I replied through my Iphone. Please kindly ignor it and read it void Here is the corrected version “ The argument submitted relating to use of Duchanbe is totally invalid, contradictory as it is amalgamation of various irrelevant passages ,terms which we have heard having no relation with the issue under discussion The submitter of the argument mixed up many things and reiterate her hostility against GAC which is not a new sentiments as she demonstrated such animosity many times in the past .In fact this issue has nothing to do with GAC, It relates to the citizen of a country or countries which wish to preserve their legitimate rights, their traditions, customs, cultural heritage, social believe and historical annotation as well as their identity. It is a big mistake that those citizens give up or abandon such traditions, customs, cultural heritage , social believe and historical annotation as well as their identity for the sake of vague term “ innovation” created by commercial people defended by someone from noncommercial stakeholder group. I do not know what is being protected. Perhaps merely “Commercial Interest “ Reference was made to innovation? What innovation? Is it just commercial interests that pushed these citizens to be deprived from their fundamental rights What role the terms freedom of speech plays here that the citizen of a country should abandon their legitimate rights associated with their traditions, customs, cultural heritage , social believe and historical annotation as well as their identity if they customs, cultural heritage, their past historical heritage, identity for the sake of vague term “ innovation” created by commercial people defended by someone from noncommercial stakeholder group. The words becomes strange when someone so aggressively and so mercilesslly attacks citizens of countries defending commercial interest. Regards Kavouss
On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 10:31 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: The argument submitted is totally invalid contradictory and amalgamation of vêtions passage from 200 of thousands of terms , phrases and passages which are irrelevant to the issue. The submitters mixed up many things and reiterate her hostility against GAC which is not a new sentiments I do not know who she protects She talks about invoices innovation? What innovation ? Is it just commercial interests that deprive the 120 million Persian language speaking when they talk about Duchambeh ? What role the terms freedom of speech pays here that the citizen of a country should abondons their legitimate tights if they customs, culture , historical heritage, identity for the sake of vague term “ innovation” created by commercial people defended by someone from non commercial stakeholder group. The words becomes strange when ad she referred to herself as “ finger of god” so aggressively and merciless attacks citizens of countries defending commercial interest. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Sep 2018, at 07:25, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll be short in response.... First come, first served may be a "declared goal" for some participants. For others, it is not. It is still a contentious issue with a lack of consensus. So it is not "the declared goal." If the community authentication process is a bad fit for geo-gTLDs, then let's adjust it, not use it as an excuse to reject the community route. If a "brand selling stuff in the city, but it has no presence there," can't register in that city domain, that may well be the right result and the right model anyway. I'm pretty sure quite a number of geo-gTLDs work that way (and some ccTLDs, too). We can't base a major policy decision on a fable, "The Story of the Bad Actor Who Can't See Himself." This is a pile of inventions/assumptions without any fact/evidence basis. A number of these assumptions are incorrect: that "no intent at all" is the same thing as declaring that you do not intend to associate the gTLD with a geo-place; that Donuts does no marketing at all; that we are powerless to deal with the hypothetical problem of marketing non-geos as geos; or that gTLDs marketed by nobody will somehow go geo-viral. But, thank you for more clearly defining what you think is the "loophole" -- non-geo-use gTLDs that turn back into geo-use gTLDs in practice. This would exclude the "brand"-type non-geo use case from the "loophole." It also excludes all "open" gTLDs being marketed in a non-geo way (e.g., .spa). If we really are trying to "close" a "loophole," we need to close only the loophole while preserving the non-geo use exception for legitimate non-geo applicants. Eliminating the non-geo use exception for some potential gTLDs is not "closing a loophole," it is "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." I suspect that for some, "closing the loophole" is just a smokescreen for gifting a number of potential gTLDs back to the exclusive control of governments and public authorities. What you call a "loophole" is really intended as a protection for legitimate non-geo registrants. That protection needs to be preserved. And unlike the hypothetical sneaky applicant in the fable, there were actual applicants in the last round who either benefited from the non-geo-use protection, or should have benefited from it. Bottom line: the non-geo use pathway is a process that needs to be tweaked or refined -- not eliminated.
(Of course, if we are looking for "loopholes" to "eliminate", there is one quite similar to "gTLDs registered as non-geos and then morphing back into geo-use": TLDs registered as ccTLDs that have morphed into non-geo use. These may not be within the WT5 remit, but they are a geo-related issue nonetheless. But that's a discussion for another time and place...)
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:00 AM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: As we both are quite vocal on this topic I try to be short:
· First Come First Serve is the declared goal. Some want it already smack after the next round. Once that happens: there won’t be contention resolve mechanisms anymore – by definition!
· The requirement to authenticate registrants: Yes! I agree with you – it’s a good thing! But in the realm of community priority applications you are forced to define the community very narrow – and then ONLY that narrowly defined group of entities is eligible to register domains! Imagine a brand selling stuff in the city – but has no presence there! They would not be eligible to register their brand.city domain. Unless you define the community quite broad – and my personal experience teaches me: DON’T! It might cost you your CPE.
· The bad actor: They might not even see themselves as such. In the 2012 round ALL the generic namespace was up for grabs, PLUS: most players did not believe that city gTLDs would be profitable. This has changed: The best generic terms are now taken. Citiy gTLDs have proved to be profitable. Here the mechanics: VC money will be raised; and once cash is raised - strings will be chosen. Generic keywords are pretty much exhausted. City names make economic sense on several levels. If your operation model would be identical to that of “Donuts”: you won’t actively “market” your strings to anybody. You just push them out into the registrar channel. Why on earth would you care for “geo-use”? You do not! You just apply for the string, with NO INTENT AT ALL. This saves you the acquisition of the support letter – hence my formulation: “Non-geo use loophole”.
Moving on ……
Anybody willing to support my suggestion:
· Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)
· X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.
· This provision could be included in the “non-capital cities” silo.
The current language in the 2012 AGB reads:
An application for a city name will be subject to the
geographic names requirements (i.e., will require
documentation of support or non-objection from
the relevant governments or public authorities) if:
(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
The (a) portion implies the so called “non-geo use provision”. So my suggestion would be to change it to:
(a) It is either clear from applicant statements within the
application that the applicant will use the TLD
primarily for purposes associated with the city
name or the city metro area population is exceeding a threshold of X
“X” needs obviously to be defined. Some would like to see it at 50k people – others at over a Million. The lower the number – the less likely we find consensus. But the definition of the threshold is independent of the measure in itself. Let’s not get hung up on the exact number – let’s see whether the general CONCEPT finds agreement: that a sizeable city should be as well protected as a national subdivision or capital city! Setting “X” to 1 Million would be a balanced approach to at least protect those city communities that are likely to potentially fall victim to applicants that simply have no “intents” – and therefore don’t voice such intent in their application – hence avoid the looping-in of the city Government! The formulation “clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name….” really is very weak and simply INVITES to NOT have such “statements” in the application!
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 5:43 AM To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report
I think the Community Priority Evaluation survived the attempt at "hole poking" pretty much unscathed:
Unless you've been to the future, nobody has any idea if or when the gTLD application process will move away from rounds. If it does, batching or some other process could still create contention sets. "First come, first served" may never come. It seems entirely appropriate for city-based gTLDs to authenticate registrants, whether or not they are community-based applications. "Open season" on registrations blows a hole in the concept of city-based gTLDs -- unless the only idea is to deliver Internet real estate to one preferred applicant, who can then exploit the gTLD however they please. If there are problems with the way Community Priority processes worked, it's our job to fix them -- for geo's and (elsewhere in the WG) non-geo's as well. I understand that avoiding it would be preferable to some, and that it's easier to avoid if its warts are left on, but I can't believe any disinterested participant would support that approach. Finally, the mythical "bad actor" that is the impetus for this suggestion seems to have no basis in reality. Are there any examples of this occurring in the prior round? Of course, just about every type of "bad actor" is remotely possible, but how likely is it?
Moving on...
While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander:
extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime). Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision. Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule. A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!) There may be others, but that's a start.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi Emily,
TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism).
Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea:
· Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived!
· It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later
· In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it.
Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind.
So my suggestion (yes, again!):
· Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)
· X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.
I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”?
Thanks for hearing my out,
Alexander.berlin
From: Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here and transcript here.
An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3.
Kind regards,
Emily
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi,
Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close).
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins)
2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins)
3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins)
4. AOB (5 mins)
If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards,
Emily
Emily Barabas | Policy Manager
ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Hi All, let me add some experiences about the concept of community geo applicants from the geoTLD group: Of all geoTLD applications, 15 of them had a community designation. The other geoTLDs were standard applications. All geoTLDs came with different “flavours” of registration policies. While the community designation is one viable option, it is certainly neither wanted nor reasonable in all cases and depends on several local conditions – not all geoTLDs are the same. If there is interest in further facts about community/non-comunity geoTLDs , I am happy to provide them . Best 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 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. September 2018 04:43 An: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report I think the Community Priority Evaluation survived the attempt at "hole poking" pretty much unscathed: * Unless you've been to the future, nobody has any idea if or when the gTLD application process will move away from rounds. If it does, batching or some other process could still create contention sets. "First come, first served" may never come. * It seems entirely appropriate for city-based gTLDs to authenticate registrants, whether or not they are community-based applications. "Open season" on registrations blows a hole in the concept of city-based gTLDs -- unless the only idea is to deliver Internet real estate to one preferred applicant, who can then exploit the gTLD however they please. * If there are problems with the way Community Priority processes worked, it's our job to fix them -- for geo's and (elsewhere in the WG) non-geo's as well. I understand that avoiding it would be preferable to some, and that it's easier to avoid if its warts are left on, but I can't believe any disinterested participant would support that approach. Finally, the mythical "bad actor" that is the impetus for this suggestion seems to have no basis in reality. Are there any examples of this occurring in the prior round? Of course, just about every type of "bad actor" is remotely possible, but how likely is it? Moving on... While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander: * extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories * replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime). * Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision. * Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration * A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule. * A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!) There may be others, but that's a start. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Hi Emily, TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism). Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea: • Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived! • It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later • In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it. Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind. So my suggestion (yes, again!): • Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision) • X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both. I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”? Thanks for hearing my out, Alexander.berlin From: Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM 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] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC Hi Alexander, Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-08-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> and transcript here<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...>. An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC Hi, Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close). Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC Dear Work Track 5 members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins) 2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins) 3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins) 4. AOB (5 mins) If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 _______________________________________________ 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 support the suggestions from Greg below regarding “notions” to include in the report and would add that it is important for our report to be balanced and inclusive of the views expressed by a number of participants through the course of our work and those suggested additions would help to facilitate that balance and significantly improve the report. Thanks, Robin
On Sep 4, 2018, at 7:42 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
[…]
While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander: extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime). Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision. Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule. A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!) There may be others, but that's a start.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: Hi Emily,
TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism).
Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea:
· Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived!
· It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later
· In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it.
Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind.
So my suggestion (yes, again!):
· Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)
· X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.
I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”?
Thanks for hearing my out,
Alexander.berlin
From: Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-08-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> and transcript here <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...>.
An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3.
Kind regards,
Emily
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi,
Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close).
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins)
2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins)
3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins)
4. AOB (5 mins)
If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
Emily
Emily Barabas | Policy Manager
ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Greg: You are joking, of course. CW
On Sep 4, 2018, at 7:42 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com > wrote:
[…]
While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander: * extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories * replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime). * Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision. * Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration * A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule. * A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!) There may be others, but that's a start.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin > wrote:
> >
Hi Emily,
TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism).
Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea:
· Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived!
· It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later
· In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it.
Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind.
So my suggestion (yes, again!):
· Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)
· X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.
I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”?
Thanks for hearing my out,
Alexander.berlin
From: Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org ] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM 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] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-08-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro... and transcript here https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript... .
An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3.
Kind regards,
Emily
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org > on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin > Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin " <alexander@schubert.berlin mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin > Date: Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org " <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi,
Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close).
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org ] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins)
2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins)
3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins)
4. AOB (5 mins)
If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org .
Kind regards,
Emily
Emily Barabas | Policy Manager
ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@icann.org mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi Christopher, I didn’t find your comment helpful. If you are serious, then the comment is merely dismissive of Greg’s ideas without providing any real feedback or suggestions on other ways forward. Could you please try again? Thanks very much. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 3:32 PM To: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report Greg: You are joking, of course. CW On Sep 4, 2018, at 7:42 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: […] While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander: * extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories * replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime). * Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision. * Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration * A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule. * A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!) There may be others, but that's a start. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Hi Emily, TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism). Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea: • Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived! • It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later • In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it. Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind. So my suggestion (yes, again!): • Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision) • X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both. I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”? Thanks for hearing my out, Alexander.berlin From: Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM 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] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC Hi Alexander, Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.i...> and transcript here<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann....>. An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC Hi, Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close). Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC Dear Work Track 5 members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins) 2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins) 3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins) 4. AOB (5 mins) If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7Cf637d97845a3482e05c308d6136ec5eb%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636717763822466527&sdata=P5WYDSer8sppQN2gUMZ7GhaBNAip5QroTR0BVGIIaHE%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Christopher, Not joking at all. These are all valid and rational proposals, many of which have come up before in our discussions. Perhaps you mistakenly thought that this group was charged only with giving more preferences and privileges to “geos.” Not the case at all. The dial can move in both directions. More to the point, consensus comes from compromise — give to get, and all that. While these proposals are valid in their own right, they will also be useful in examining possible compromises. In any case, if I’m joking, we’re all joking.... Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:33 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Greg: You are joking, of course.
CW
On Sep 4, 2018, at 7:42 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
[…]
While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander:
- extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories - replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime). - Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision. - Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration - A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule. - A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!)
There may be others, but that's a start.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi Emily,
TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism).
Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea:
· Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived!
· It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later
· In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it.
Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind.
*So my suggestion (yes, again!):*
· *Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)*
· *X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.*
I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”?
Thanks for hearing my out,
Alexander.berlin
*From:* Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-08-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> and transcript here <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...>.
An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Reply-To: *"alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Date: *Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi,
Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close).
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Emily Barabas *Sent:* Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins)
2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins)
3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins)
4. AOB (5 mins)
If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards,
Emily
*Emily Barabas *| Policy Manager
*ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
I join Greg and Robin in thinking that these ideas are not “jokes.” They may or may not be suitable for adoption in the long run, but they are certainly worthy of extended consideration. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 5:58 PM To: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report Christopher, Not joking at all. These are all valid and rational proposals, many of which have come up before in our discussions. Perhaps you mistakenly thought that this group was charged only with giving more preferences and privileges to “geos.” Not the case at all. The dial can move in both directions. More to the point, consensus comes from compromise — give to get, and all that. While these proposals are valid in their own right, they will also be useful in examining possible compromises. In any case, if I’m joking, we’re all joking.... Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:33 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> > wrote: Greg: You are joking, of course. CW On Sep 4, 2018, at 7:42 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > wrote: […] While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander: * extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories * replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime). * Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision. * Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration * A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule. * A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!) There may be others, but that's a start. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Hi Emily, TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism). Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea: * Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived! * It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later * In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it. Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind. So my suggestion (yes, again!): * Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision) * X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both. I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”? Thanks for hearing my out, Alexander.berlin From: Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> ] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM 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] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC Hi Alexander, Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-08-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> and transcript here <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...> . An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> " <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > Date: Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC Hi, Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close). Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC Dear Work Track 5 members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins) 2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins) 3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins) 4. AOB (5 mins) If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> . Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 _______________________________________________ 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 agree. I think the joke which was taken seriously by ICANN was to give privileges to some entities over generic names, under dubious, arbitrary measures. Farzaneh On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 12:14 PM Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
I join Greg and Robin in thinking that these ideas are not “jokes.” They may or may not be suitable for adoption in the long run, but they are certainly worthy of extended consideration.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Wednesday, September 5, 2018 5:58 PM *To:* lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report
Christopher,
Not joking at all. These are all valid and rational proposals, many of which have come up before in our discussions.
Perhaps you mistakenly thought that this group was charged only with giving more preferences and privileges to “geos.” Not the case at all. The dial can move in both directions. More to the point, consensus comes from compromise — give to get, and all that. While these proposals are valid in their own right, they will also be useful in examining possible compromises.
In any case, if I’m joking, we’re all joking....
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:33 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Greg: You are joking, of course.
CW
On Sep 4, 2018, at 7:42 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
[…]
While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander:
- extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories - replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime). - Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision. - Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration - A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule. - A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!)
There may be others, but that's a start.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi Emily,
TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism).
Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea:
· Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived!
· It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later
· In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it.
Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind.
*So my suggestion (yes, again!):*
· *Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)*
· *X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.*
I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”?
Thanks for hearing my out,
Alexander.berlin
*From:* Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-08-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> and transcript here <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...>.
An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Reply-To: *"alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Date: *Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi,
Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close).
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Emily Barabas *Sent:* Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins)
2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins)
3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins)
4. AOB (5 mins)
If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards,
Emily
*Emily Barabas *| Policy Manager
*ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Excuse me for asking about something that is probably obvious for most of you, but do you setting aside capital cities here? Marita On 9/7/2018 12:25 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
I agree.
I think the joke which was taken seriously by ICANN was to give privileges to some entities over generic names, under dubious, arbitrary measures.
Farzaneh
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 12:14 PM Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
I join Greg and Robin in thinking that these ideas are not “jokes.” They may or may not be suitable for adoption in the long run, but they are certainly worthy of extended consideration.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Wednesday, September 5, 2018 5:58 PM *To:* lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report
Christopher,
Not joking at all. These are all valid and rational proposals, many of which have come up before in our discussions.
Perhaps you mistakenly thought that this group was charged only with giving more preferences and privileges to “geos.” Not the case at all. The dial can move in both directions. More to the point, consensus comes from compromise — give to get, and all that. While these proposals are valid in their own right, they will also be useful in examining possible compromises.
In any case, if I’m joking, we’re all joking....
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:33 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:
Greg: You are joking, of course.
CW
On Sep 4, 2018, at 7:42 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
[…]
While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander:
* extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories * replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime). * Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision. * Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration * A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule. * A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!)
There may be others, but that's a start.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Hi Emily,
TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism).
Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea:
·Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived!
·It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later
·In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it.
Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind.
*So my suggestion (yes, again!):*
·*Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)*
·*X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.*
I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”?
Thanks for hearing my out,
Alexander.berlin
*From:* Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>] *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM *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] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-08-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> and transcript here <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...>.
An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> *Reply-To: *"alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> *Date: *Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi,
Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5^th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close).
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Emily Barabas *Sent:* Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins)
2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins)
3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins)
4. AOB (5 mins)
If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
Emily
*Emily Barabas *| Policy Manager
*ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
the issues that might come across as very obvious to you will create complications later on. We have given many many examples of this but I will give you another: a capital city of 800,000 people that has a generic name: Dushanbe. Dushanbe is the capital of Tajikistan. In Farsi dushanbe means Monday. There are 110 million farsi speakers around the world. Reserving names, setting them aside for later release, giving them arbitrarily to entities, all are ex ante actions that are unjustified. It’s protectionism. It will politicize the cyber space even further and harms innovation, creativity and freedom of speech. But we have said these over and over. In the end, it is not really a multistakeholder process when one group that actually has an advisory role can obstruct what others agree on. On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 12:38 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Excuse me for askabout something that is probably obvious for most of you, but do you setting aside capital cities here?
Marita
On 9/7/2018 12:25 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
I agree.
I think the joke which was taken seriously by ICANN was to give privileges to some entities over generic names, under dubious, arbitrary measures.
Farzaneh
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 12:14 PM Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
I join Greg and Robin in thinking that these ideas are not “jokes.” They may or may not be suitable for adoption in the long run, but they are certainly worthy of extended consideration.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Wednesday, September 5, 2018 5:58 PM *To:* lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report
Christopher,
Not joking at all. These are all valid and rational proposals, many of which have come up before in our discussions.
Perhaps you mistakenly thought that this group was charged only with giving more preferences and privileges to “geos.” Not the case at all. The dial can move in both directions. More to the point, consensus comes from compromise — give to get, and all that. While these proposals are valid in their own right, they will also be useful in examining possible compromises.
In any case, if I’m joking, we’re all joking....
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:33 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Greg: You are joking, of course.
CW
On Sep 4, 2018, at 7:42 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
[…]
While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander:
- extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories - replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime). - Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision. - Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration - A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule. - A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!)
There may be others, but that's a start.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi Emily,
TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism).
Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea:
· Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived!
· It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later
· In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it.
Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind.
*So my suggestion (yes, again!):*
· *Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)*
· *X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.*
I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”?
Thanks for hearing my out,
Alexander.berlin
*From:* Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-08-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> and transcript here <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...>.
An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Reply-To: *"alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Date: *Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi,
Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close).
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Emily Barabas *Sent:* Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins)
2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins)
3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins)
4. AOB (5 mins)
If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards,
Emily
*Emily Barabas *| Policy Manager
*ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
-- Farzaneh
Hello Farzaneh. Thank you for deciphering the weird posting I sent out on this. I had trouble deciphering it myself at first. Sorry about that. But on the subject -- Dushanbe means Monday in Tajic as well which has its origins in ancient Persia and may or may not be related to Farsi (that I don't know). I'm sure you know this and, yes, there are 100 million people who speak Farsi. I wish I was one of them. It is an ancient language which, perhaps, one day might find itself on the UNESCO intangible cultural heritage site. And maybe ICANN would have set up a way to recognize such world treasures in the gTLD system by that time. I should live that long!! I am NOT speaking for governments, and am not saying governments should make the decision. I just feel that if citizens of capital cities and cities of over 1M around the world who would probably, if we could poll them, agree that large cities and capital cities, at a minimum, should receive some special attention in this debate. And so I am with the citizens, as citizens of a large cultural entity, they also should have some rights in this discussion. I don't think that is dubious or arbitrary -- or, if it was so, in the initial iteration of the decision around capital cities I don't think we should be carrying that into this discussion. I think that the idea that citizens of these entities also have rights that we should recognize in this discussion is a valid position to hold as a non-government person in a multistakeholder discussion. Cheers Marita On 9/7/2018 11:10 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
the issues that might come across as very obvious to you will create complications later on. We have given many many examples of this but I will give you another: a capital city of 800,000 people that has a generic name: Dushanbe. Dushanbe is the capital of Tajikistan. In Farsi dushanbe means Monday. There are 110 million farsi speakers around the world.
Reserving names, setting them aside for later release, giving them arbitrarily to entities, all are ex ante actions that are unjustified. It’s protectionism. It will politicize the cyber space even further and harms innovation, creativity and freedom of speech. But we have said these over and over.
In the end, it is not really a multistakeholder process when one group that actually has an advisory role can obstruct what others agree on.
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 12:38 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote:
Excuse me for askabout something that is probably obvious for most of you, but do you setting aside capital cities here?
Marita
On 9/7/2018 12:25 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
I agree.
I think the joke which was taken seriously by ICANN was to give privileges to some entities over generic names, under dubious, arbitrary measures.
Farzaneh
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 12:14 PM Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
I join Greg and Robin in thinking that these ideas are not “jokes.” They may or may not be suitable for adoption in the long run, but they are certainly worthy of extended consideration.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Wednesday, September 5, 2018 5:58 PM *To:* lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report
Christopher,
Not joking at all. These are all valid and rational proposals, many of which have come up before in our discussions.
Perhaps you mistakenly thought that this group was charged only with giving more preferences and privileges to “geos.” Not the case at all. The dial can move in both directions. More to the point, consensus comes from compromise — give to get, and all that. While these proposals are valid in their own right, they will also be useful in examining possible compromises.
In any case, if I’m joking, we’re all joking....
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:33 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:
Greg: You are joking, of course.
CW
On Sep 4, 2018, at 7:42 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
[…]
While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander:
* extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories * replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime). * Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision. * Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration * A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule. * A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!)
There may be others, but that's a start.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Hi Emily,
TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism).
Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea:
·Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived!
·It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later
·In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it.
Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind.
*So my suggestion (yes, again!):*
·*Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)*
·*X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.*
I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”?
Thanks for hearing my out,
Alexander.berlin
*From:* Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>] *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM *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] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-08-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> and transcript here <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...>.
An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> *Reply-To: *"alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> *Date: *Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi,
Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5^th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close).
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Emily Barabas *Sent:* Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins)
2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins)
3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins)
4. AOB (5 mins)
If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
Emily
*Emily Barabas *| Policy Manager
*ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Farzaneh
Very dubious indeed
On Sep 7, 2018, at 20:25, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>> wrote:
I agree.
I think the joke which was taken seriously by ICANN was to give privileges to some entities over generic names, under dubious, arbitrary measures.
Farzaneh
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 12:14 PM Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: I join Greg and Robin in thinking that these ideas are not “jokes.” They may or may not be suitable for adoption in the long run, but they are certainly worthy of extended consideration.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684>
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 5:58 PM To: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report
Christopher,
Not joking at all. These are all valid and rational proposals, many of which have come up before in our discussions.
Perhaps you mistakenly thought that this group was charged only with giving more preferences and privileges to “geos.” Not the case at all. The dial can move in both directions. More to the point, consensus comes from compromise — give to get, and all that. While these proposals are valid in their own right, they will also be useful in examining possible compromises.
In any case, if I’m joking, we’re all joking....
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:33 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:
Greg: You are joking, of course.
CW
On Sep 4, 2018, at 7:42 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
[…]
While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander:
extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime). Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision. Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule. A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!) There may be others, but that's a start.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Hi Emily,
TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism).
Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea:
· Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived!
· It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later
· In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it.
Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind.
So my suggestion (yes, again!):
· Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)
· X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.
I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”?
Thanks for hearing my out,
Alexander.berlin
From: Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM 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] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-08-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> and transcript here <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...>.
An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3.
Kind regards,
Emily
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi,
Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close).
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins)
2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins)
3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins)
4. AOB (5 mins)
If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Kind regards,
Emily
Emily Barabas | Policy Manager
ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ 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>_______________________________________________ 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
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
Agreed. The compromise of 2012 went way too far kowtowing to government demands, holding the entire program hostage. We should roll that back now that we see the problems that were caused. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Fri, Sep 7, 2018, 9:14 AM Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
I join Greg and Robin in thinking that these ideas are not “jokes.” They may or may not be suitable for adoption in the long run, but they are certainly worthy of extended consideration.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Wednesday, September 5, 2018 5:58 PM *To:* lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report
Christopher,
Not joking at all. These are all valid and rational proposals, many of which have come up before in our discussions.
Perhaps you mistakenly thought that this group was charged only with giving more preferences and privileges to “geos.” Not the case at all. The dial can move in both directions. More to the point, consensus comes from compromise — give to get, and all that. While these proposals are valid in their own right, they will also be useful in examining possible compromises.
In any case, if I’m joking, we’re all joking....
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:33 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Greg: You are joking, of course.
CW
On Sep 4, 2018, at 7:42 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
[…]
While we don't really work by "motions," since we seem to be looking for "notions" to include in the report, here are some that are at least as viable as the one suggested by Alexander:
- extending the "non-geo use" provision to other existing geo categories - replacing the "letter of consent/non-objection" with a "notice and opportunity to object" in some or all cases. While this concept needs further development, that is just more reason to put it in the report (and to develop it further in the meantime). - Eliminating the sub-national category (since it is full of obscurities), or subjecting it to the "non-geo use" provision. - Once a geo-use gTLD is registered, all other variations and translations are unconditionally available for registration - A "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected (i.e., no objection or non-consent can be used to stop its registration). Arguably, this rule was in place in the prior round, but it didn't seem to work out that way. Hence, the need for a bright-line rule. - A heightened awareness program for governments and others regarding the gTLD program so that they will be more likely to seek (or to back) a registration for the relevant geo-name. This could be accompanied by structured supports and advice to maximize the opportunities for future geo-applicants. (To be clear, I am all in favor of geo-use applications, and we should be spending more time facilitating them, and less time creating veto rights. More doors, and less walls!)
There may be others, but that's a start.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:23 PM Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi Emily,
TNX. Just: we still haven’t solved the “vulnerable, sizeable city” problem. I am not much scared about brands – more about bad actors “abusing” the “non-geo use” provision. If I look at how we protect country names, ISO 3166 3-letter codes, country subdivisions (3166 Alpha-2) and capital cities: I think sizeable cities (e.g. Shanghai – 24 million people, larger than 75% of all countries in the world) deserve similar protections. It’s a few hundred strings, none of them generic, and if maybe someone could run the cities with more than 1 Million inhabitants against a few important TM databases: I don’t think brands are really much impacted either. Geo-name based gTLD warehousers will only go for BIG cities. If we require these bad actors to loop in the city government – they will walk away. I think we owe it to these city communities to make sure they get to be able to use “their names” in a way that they exercise some control over it – and not falling victim to VC-money driven exploitation in a “wild west” land grab style (and potential “G7-lead” global cyber colonialism).
Btw: Paul recently offered as “solution” to apply as “community priority application” – so city applicants would win “automatically”. Brilliant idea! I happen to have (co-)founded both: a city and a community priority applicant. Even the city applicant was already in 2005 planned (and set up – including the support acquisition, etc) to be like what later would be called “community applicant”. Let me poke a few holes in that otherwise brilliant idea:
· Only the next (or maximum next two) application phases will be “rounds”. In absence of “rounds” there won’t be contention – and no community priority mechanism anymore! So the “solution” is short-lived!
· It would force the applicant to commit (even if it later turns out they were the ONLY applicant) to engage in registrant authentication: a requirement for community priority applicants that can’t be reversed later
· In the past 6 years I learned literally EVERYTHING about “how to shoot down a community applicant” – and you just won’t believe to what ends people go to do it (I know, I was at the receiving end)! “.osaka” was LUCKY – if they had a “real” contender (a straight shooter) they would have NEVER EVER gotten 15 points (and frankly I ask myself how that was even possible). CPE is a cruel thing – prevailing with a “city-based” community would be sheer luck. And once your city name is not unique: just forget it.
Long story short: Nope, “community priority application” is NOT the answer to the problem. In my mind.
*So my suggestion (yes, again!):*
· *Have cities with populations over X being treated like capital cities. (Elimination of the “non-geo” use provision)*
· *X to be debated by either us in WT5 or the ICANN community – or both.*
I say at minimum a Million inhabitants in the Metro Area. Would be nice if we could have this proposed solution in the report – so we could see how people react. Would obviously require to explain the underlying problem: the potential “abuse” of the “non-geo use” provision (not by brands, but by evil-doers). Anybody here who would like to second my motion to have this solution (“elimination of the non-geo use provision for sizeable cities”) in the report? How to do that? Create another silo right behind the “capital city” silo? Or include it in the “non-capital city” silo; and just say that the “non-geo use provision” is only available for cities smaller “X”?
Thanks for hearing my out,
Alexander.berlin
*From:* Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:07 PM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for your question. As discussed on the last call, based on feedback from the WT, the leadership team has decided not to conduct consensus calls prior to publishing the Initial Report. This provides the group more time for discussion and does not require the WT to feel “locked into” a position prior to public comment. For more information on the details, you can review the call recording here <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-08-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> and transcript here <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...>.
An updated work plan taking into account this change will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Reply-To: *"alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Date: *Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 15:50 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Hi,
Question: The initially planned “consensus call” on non-capital cities will be subject to the next call then? I am asking as it was originally planned for Sep 5th – but obviously no “consensus” has been reached (not even close).
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Emily Barabas *Sent:* Monday, September 03, 2018 10:20 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda: Work Track 5 meeting - Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC
Dear Work Track 5 members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call scheduled for Wednesday 5 September at 5:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins)
2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins)
3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins)
4. AOB (5 mins)
If you need a dial out or would like an apology to be noted for this call, please send an email as far in advance as possible to gnso-secs@icann.org.
Kind regards,
Emily
*Emily Barabas *| Policy Manager
*ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear Mike, Stating that "The compromise of 2012 went too far kowtowing to government demands, holding the entire program hostage” does not seem accurate. As far as I’m concerned, the program went by pretty well for some few exceptions. Taking into account the opinions of other stakeholder groups is not holding the program hostage, is actually how the multistakeholder model works and how this group is supposed to work. All opinions (not “demands”) are welcomed in this process and are the key elements of ICANN. Best, Rosal'ia [cid:B190111C-4AAD-456E-809F-8934B6CA8935] On Sep 7, 2018, at 11:14 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: went way too far kowtowing to government demands, holding the entire program hostage
+1 ________________________________ Von: Rosalía Morales <rosalia.morales@nic.cr> Datum: 7. September 2018 um 19:42:59 MESZ An: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report Dear Mike, Stating that "The compromise of 2012 went too far kowtowing to government demands, holding the entire program hostage” does not seem accurate. As far as I’m concerned, the program went by pretty well for some few exceptions. Taking into account the opinions of other stakeholder groups is not holding the program hostage, is actually how the multistakeholder model works and how this group is supposed to work. All opinions (not “demands”) are welcomed in this process and are the key elements of ICANN. Best, Rosal'ia [cid:B190111C-4AAD-456E-809F-8934B6CA8935] On Sep 7, 2018, at 11:14 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: went way too far kowtowing to government demands, holding the entire program hostage
The “few exceptions” seem to be virtually every application where the applicant intended a “non-geo” use but the string was judged to be (among other things) a geo-name. If we don’t fix this, we’ve failed. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 1:44 PM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
+1
________________________________
Von: Rosalía Morales <rosalia.morales@nic.cr> Datum: 7. September 2018 um 19:42:59 MESZ An: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report
Dear Mike,
Stating that "The compromise of 2012 went too far kowtowing to government demands, holding the entire program hostage” does not seem accurate. As far as I’m concerned, the program went by pretty well for some few exceptions. Taking into account the opinions of other stakeholder groups is not holding the program hostage, is actually how the multistakeholder model works and how this group is supposed to work. All opinions (not “demands”) are welcomed in this process and are the key elements of ICANN.
Best, Rosal'ia [cid:B190111C-4AAD-456E-809F-8934B6CA8935]
On Sep 7, 2018, at 11:14 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto: mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote:
went way too far kowtowing to government demands, holding the entire program hostage
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Also "exceptions" like Amazon and Persian Gulf, which were not 'geo terms' as defined, and yet nevertheless have met government opposition and delay. There needs to be certainly for future applicants, as was clearly intended to have been the goal in 2012, only to be thwarted by governments many times over. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
The “few exceptions” seem to be virtually every application where the applicant intended a “non-geo” use but the string was judged to be (among other things) a geo-name.
If we don’t fix this, we’ve failed.
Best regards,
Greg
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 1:44 PM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
+1
________________________________
Von: Rosalía Morales <rosalia.morales@nic.cr> Datum: 7. September 2018 um 19:42:59 MESZ An: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report
Dear Mike,
Stating that "The compromise of 2012 went too far kowtowing to government demands, holding the entire program hostage” does not seem accurate. As far as I’m concerned, the program went by pretty well for some few exceptions. Taking into account the opinions of other stakeholder groups is not holding the program hostage, is actually how the multistakeholder model works and how this group is supposed to work. All opinions (not “demands”) are welcomed in this process and are the key elements of ICANN.
Best, Rosal'ia [cid:B190111C-4AAD-456E-809F-8934B6CA8935]
On Sep 7, 2018, at 11:14 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto: mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote:
went way too far kowtowing to government demands, holding the entire program hostage
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear Mike, Thanks for clarifying what exactly you meant in your previous e-mail. These two exceptions out of more than a thousand applications puts things in perspective. Best, Rosalía [cid:B190111C-4AAD-456E-809F-8934B6CA8935] On Sep 7, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: Also "exceptions" like Amazon and Persian Gulf, which were not 'geo terms' as defined, and yet nevertheless have met government opposition and delay. There needs to be certainly for future applicants, as was clearly intended to have been the goal in 2012, only to be thwarted by governments many times over. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: The “few exceptions” seem to be virtually every application where the applicant intended a “non-geo” use but the string was judged to be (among other things) a geo-name. If we don’t fix this, we’ve failed. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 1:44 PM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: +1 ________________________________ Von: Rosalía Morales <rosalia.morales@nic.cr<mailto:rosalia.morales@nic.cr>> Datum: 7. September 2018 um 19:42:59 MESZ An: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> 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] Motion to include a notion of “Elimination of the 'non-geo use provision' for sizeable cities” in the report Dear Mike, Stating that "The compromise of 2012 went too far kowtowing to government demands, holding the entire program hostage” does not seem accurate. As far as I’m concerned, the program went by pretty well for some few exceptions. Taking into account the opinions of other stakeholder groups is not holding the program hostage, is actually how the multistakeholder model works and how this group is supposed to work. All opinions (not “demands”) are welcomed in this process and are the key elements of ICANN. Best, Rosal'ia [cid:B190111C-4AAD-456E-809F-8934B6CA8935] On Sep 7, 2018, at 11:14 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>> wrote: went way too far kowtowing to government demands, holding the entire program hostage _______________________________________________ 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
Thank you Rosalia. Nicely said. Marita On 9/7/2018 1:42 PM, Rosalía Morales wrote:
Dear Mike,
Stating that "The compromise of 2012 went too far kowtowing to government demands, holding the entire program hostage” does not seem accurate. As far as I’m concerned, the program went by pretty well for some few exceptions. Taking into account the opinions of other stakeholder groups is not holding the program hostage, is actually how the multistakeholder model works and how this group is supposed to work. All opinions (not “demands”) are welcomed in this process and are the key elements of ICANN.
Best, Rosal'ia
On Sep 7, 2018, at 11:14 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote:
went way too far kowtowing to government demands, holding the entire program hostage
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
participants (15)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Arasteh -
farzaneh badii -
Greg Shatan -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH -
Kavouss Arasteh
-
Kris Seeburn -
lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson -
Marita Moll -
McGrady, Paul D. -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Robin Gross -
Rosalía Morales