Dear Liz, I am sorry, maybe I am still expressing myself in a way that (obviously) leaves way for misinterpretation: * Yes: Capital Cities are PROTECTED by the 2012 AGB; there is no “non-geo use” clause! Anybody applying for a string identical (or confusing similar) to a capital needs Government support! o I strongly suggest that we add the language “confusing similar” in order to avoid that some “evildoer” goes for “.teheran” (as singular applicant) – delegates it as “non-geo use” gTLD – never starts to “use” it, then waits until Iran wants to apply for their capital “.tehran” in the future one day; but Iran can’t as there would be “string similarity” with “.teheran” – so they first need to buy out “.teheran” and withdraw that gTLD – or the “evildoer” (e.g. a nation state or some Billionaire who is close to such state) can with that “trick” prevent Iran from ever having their capital as gTLD! So in the INTEREST of protecting “free speech” (as emphasized by some here) we need to stop such evildoers and add language that also any string that is potentially causing string similarity issues must get Government support! After all the over 8 Million good people of Tehran (a city with a population matching that of Austria, Switzerland or Israel) would be deprived of their “free speech rights” to express themselves via .tehran based domain names! And I don’t really see that the “free speech rights” of an evil “trickster” should exceed those of 8 Million people – but maybe I just don’t understand “fee speech”. * And YES: As Canberra is a CAPITAL CITY it would REMAIN protected in the new AGB. EVERY capital would STILL be protected, even the ones that have only 18 or 56 inhabitants (like Adamstown in Pitcairn Islands). The protection is currently (AND WOULD REMAIN) independent from the population size. And I do not believe ANYBODY ever suggested ANYTHIG else. What makes you believe that anybody here suggested that the size cutoff would have to be implemented for capital cities as well? * All I am suggesting is: o All other 2012 AGB provisions stay in place o Capital cities are STILL protected (there is no “no-geo use” clause) o Cities (not regions or any other geo entity) that meet certain cut-off measures (CLEARLY DEFINED) are automatically elevated into the same status as capital cities. How ON EARTH can we demand to “protect free speech” when we are potentially exposing the entire population of cities like Lagos, Dhaka, Lahore (each with a population north of 10 Million; and if a country then they would be in the top 1/3 of most populated nations) of having deprived THEIR free speech rights? Big cities are as important as small countries. I wish we would realize that fact – and create policy that honors the free speech rights of their populations. All this is just targeting the category “city”. If we create more categories – we might have DIFFERENT rules. That’s why we have categories in the first place. Demography experts deem that cities are already (and will continue to be) more impacting for people than nations. Cities are not “just cities”. Thanks, Alexander From: Liz Williams [mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 9:52 AM To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! Hello Alexander I think that the guidance is pretty clear on capital city names. I think we can agree that a carve out for those names might be warranted which is consistent with AGB2012. However, I am not convinced that the treatment of other urban (of whatever size) geographic identifiers is clear. It seems to me, still, that attempts to set aside protections based on size of population is fraught with difficulty (using Canberra as an example our national capital wouldn’t pass any of your suggested threshold tests); or based on “it’s a geographic name therefore governments can force a veto” especially in the case of a) contested applications from numerous parties and b) where the collection of letters (not just in English) is a generic term and c) where there are other rights such as prior domain name registrations and intellectual property protections. Having a quasi-advisory board is equally ill-advised. If we need an “advisory something or other” then make the evaluators of applications responsible for that task. Give them criteria against which to assess an application and forgot, completely, about having some kind of pre or post attempt at application evaluation. I can’t think of a sensible applicant who would be convinced that they should share their highly valuable commercial or cultural intent with a “group” that has no standing in a process and on which its advice could not be relied upon in the actual evaluation process. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au> Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. On 6 Jun 2018, at 11:08 am, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: Liz, first: We need to distinguish between CITY NAMES and other geo-names. The 2012 AGB defined a couple of categories – among others are “capital cities”; and “other cities”. I urge that we stay within ONE CATHEGORY and maybe solve the city problem separately from new to be introduced categories. In regard to CITY NAMES: You seem to suggest that “for fairness and free speech” we need to provide access to everybody – so the highest bidder wins the name (or the singular applicant). You say that this would allow “dissenters” to exercise their “rights”. In the realm of city names: I can’t really imagine any cases. If this problem resurfaces in a new to be introduced categories: Let’s discuss it in THAT context. But let’s not mix it with city names. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Williams Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 12:10 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > 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] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! Hello Kavouss I am sorry I wasn’t clear. What I meant was that it is entirely possible for an application to be submitted that relates to a geographic location that is contested between one or more parties and requiring government support would be an unreasonable burden on a legitimate applicant. I can think of many locations that could be interested in applying for a new TLD but am reluctant to choose examples because that may be inflammatory. The central point is that “requiring” government support for an application for a new TLD which is a geographic identifier, as opposed to having that support as only one element of evaluation criteria could be very unfair for applicants. The freedom of speech/international rights experts will be much better placed to make these arguments based on international norms (for example, from the United Nations). I am urging us to think of different policy principles that could be applied here…we are very close to that if we stick with “objective, transparent, known in advance” and so on. What we most certainly don’t want to do is create implementation systems that could put ICANN evaluators in the middle of picking winners in deeply political discussions which have nothing to do with the management of the domain name system. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> liz.williams@auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> www.auda.org.au Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. On 4 Jun 2018, at 9:09 pm, Kavouss Arasteh < <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Liz I do not really understand the objectives of your text below C) legitimate dissent where a geographic location is contested (in all forms of geographic and cultural contest) but where it is entirely feasible for a legitimate application to be submitted for which freedom of expression is paramount. Mandating support or “non-objection” is a guarantee of failure where the applicant may have different views to the government of the day. Kavouss On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Liz Williams < <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> liz.williams@auda.org.au> wrote: The challenge with these kind of cut off numbers/percentages/qualifiers is that they don’t recognise the realities of A) numerous examples of where this just doesn’t work when generic words clash with trademarks which clash with geographic terms where no one right is more valid than any other. B) competing applications (from the Perths or Londons or Rocks) of the world which could be some of the largest cities in the world to the tiniest island towns that want to connect their unique identity to the global internet C) legitimate dissent where a geographic location is contested (in all forms of geographic and cultural contest) but where it is entirely feasible for a legitimate application to be submitted for which freedom of expression is paramount. Mandating support or “non-objection” is a guarantee of failure where the applicant may have different views to the government of the day. We must think clearly about neutral measures for evaluators to measure applications…not coming up with select lists which we will, guaranteed, get wrong. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> liz.williams@auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> www.auda.org.au Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. On 2 Jun 2018, at 12:15 pm, Justine Chew < <mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com> justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote: Alexander, I very much like the idea of a percentage of citizens of a nation as consideration for qualifying select list of cities in order to not exclude smaller cities from protective measures enjoyed by capital cities and ISO 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions. Percentages would work much better than absolute values. Thank ​ you for suggesting this.​ Justine ----- On 1 June 2018 at 23:28, Alexander Schubert < <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: Greg, So in other words folks who are trying to preserve identity rights for city inhabitants are “GEO Supremacists” in your eyes? I assume you just want to showcase your extreme displeasure with the suggested protective measures. Just search “USA supremacy” in <http://google.com/> google.com; and you know why it hurts to be called a “supremacist”. Maybe you weren’t aware how insulting the term is. But trying to stay on the topic matter: * I think we have reached general agreement that the public representatives for inhabitants of certain geo-entities deserve the unilateral right to vet an identical gTLD application. o And in the languages that matters! See Moscow: Even when only a smaller percentage of Muscovites speaks English – the gTLD is bilingual; one gTLD in English and an IDN version in Russian. Just the local language isn’t enough in a globalized world. I am a good example in this case: For my Russian traveling I use schubert.moscow – and I wouldn’t want an IDN version. I hope it’s not too “supremacist” when a metropole desires their well-known global brand in the English language as well (being a capital or not – Moscow was covered as it is capital). * Examples of the above mentioned agreed on protective measures are capital cities or ISO 3166 Alpha-2 subnational regions. * My suggestion is that we extend the same rights to cities once these meet a certain threshold. o You suggest that this should be a “select list”. So we have to define the threshold that defines the “list”. This could be an absolute number of inhabitants – or a percentage of citizens – or the lower of both values. Example: the city needs to have at minimum 250,000 inhabitants – or at least 2.5% of the nation’s population. The exact measures need to be explored. This way in countries with less than 10 Million people (and that is WELL more than half of all countries in the world) slightly smaller cities are protected as well. Latvia has 2 Million people – 2.5% equals 50,000! That protects 4 cities aside of the capital. * If a city doesn’t make the “select list” the 2012 AGB rules apply: government support only required if geo-use intent. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Freitag, 1. Juni 2018 06:44 To: Marita Moll < <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> mmoll@ca.inter.net> Cc: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! I’m in favor of TLDs being applied for and used as city TLDs by those cities or on their behalf. I’m open to the idea that a very small and select list of cities would have veto/blocking/consent/non-objection privileges (practically, they’re all pretty much the same) over any use of a string identical to their name (in the language of that city), even for non-geo uses. I’m open to the idea of a larger group of cities that would have those privileges, but only in the context of use in connection with that city. I’m not in favor of a general rule based on the geosupremacist idea that a geo use is superior to all other uses. I’m really not in favor of a general rule that non-use/non-application for geo purposes should get in the way of an application for another use of that same string. Strings have multiple meanings and uses. There is no general rule of a hierarchy of rights among legitimate uses of that string. There is certainly no hierarchy that puts geo uses at the top of the list every time. Greg On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 7:54 PM Marita Moll < <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote: I know I am a bit late in tuning into these thoughts by Alexander. But it's never too late to say "well said." I am reminded that, in it's earliest days, the Internet itself was considered a public resource. Even the slightest bit of advertising was shunned! We have come a long way from there. But we still have a chance to retain some of that original spirit. The city domain name space could be seen and managed as a resource for public benefit as Alexander suggests. And that would have to be by design."It doesn't happen by accident." Marita Moll On 5/22/2018 11:34 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Dear Liz, I am a domain broker and “domainer” since 21 years and have consequently analyzed the market from “inside” – ESPECIALLY when it comes to newly minted gTLDs. I have participated in all new gTLD introductions in the past, from .info, over .us (liberation in 2001), .eu and so on. And there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between a historical grown name space like “.com” or a ccTLD and new name spaces: If 10% of names in .com or .de are speculative registrations - .com will survive just fine. No problem. But: A new gTLD is like a new “land” – best to be compared with for example Dubai. Imagine the rulers of Dubai had sold building lots for “cost value”; say for US $2,000 per lot. They would probably have sold high volumes – but unlikely that ANYTHING would have really being developed there. The “dirt” would have remained what it is: “dirt”. Speculators would have speculated. But wisely the Dubai rulers demanded from all land buyers to DEVELOP their land – and build something; “something” that by now is the sparkling community we all know: DUBAI! In Chicago there were several blocks of sub premium land. Some people bought houses cheaply – and did NOTHING. But others developed the land around – and made the area “valuable”. Guess how the people who bought cheap and then waited until the area became valuable were called? No. Not “clever investors”. They were labeled “free-riders”. They bought cheap and did nothing – waited for the land to “mature” – then sold for prices that were high due to the work of others. That’s what “domain investors” do: they buy the premium land – let it sit for 5 to 10 years – THEN SELL for 1,000 times the “investment”. “Clever”? Nope: Mismanagement, free-Riding and damages the name-space: nothing is being developed – no “Sparkling Dubai” – all remains dirt. Legal – but doesn’t really advance the experience of the Internet user. It’s all a question of public benefit philosophy – or the absence of any. Regarding “local business”: Yes, of course one could argue that a domain tires.denver owned by speculator and operating a <http://tires.com/> tires.com Affiliate website isn’t too bad. After all people in Denver can buy tires on the website, and the domain owner “invested funds”, the registry got some money in the premium auction (e.g. US $2k – even if the domain is worth US $50k), and: “all OK, no?”. Free market, and let the registry do what they want. My view on this: A city gTLD is a VALUABLE RESCOURCE, that should aid the city community. It should be MANAGED – and ideally in a way that impacting domains like business verticals are supporting LOCAL business. The U.S. is CHOKING on a gigantic import-export deficit: stuff is being bought ABROAD instead nationally. The same is true for local communities: The Internet serves as a Trojan horse to shift local business outside the city. Tires being bought at a <http://tires.com/> tires.com Affiliate site displayed at tires.denver shift revenue OUTSIDE Denver. Apartments leased via an Affiliate site at apartments.denver destroy local real estate businesses. This list goes on and on and on. The huge advantage of a locally MANAGED city gTLD is to ADVANCE LOCAL BUSINESS! Hence “.denver”! If you wanted to buy tires SOMEWHERE – then do it. But the very idea of a .city gTLD is that it promotes LOCAL BUSINESSES! And that doesn’t happen by “accident” – it has to be promoted and MANAGED. And the ones who do that best are the local business constituencies – business associations, chambers, etc.! Imagine somebody bought a wood (large property full of trees) for cheap money – and would harvest ALL trees, and sell them at once: Yes, they would make a profit. Is it good for the land? Nope – the land will erode. Hence laws and rules regulate wood harvesting. It’s the same with city gTLDs. Selling all the premium domains in SEDO auctions to “investors” makes money – and drives registration volume: but it deprives the namespace of creating “beacon” domains that serve as brand ambassadors for the city gTLD. Took me a few years to develop all these thoughts. I am thinking about community name spaces since 2004. I love earning money – but I love even more when I serve people while doing so. Not all life is about making cash fast. So when a city Government is being presented with a city constituencies funded, owned, managed and marketed “non-profit” effort to advance the city – and on the other hand with an operator that merely “makes the namespace available”: let the cities representatives decide. I agree with you: ICANN should NOT “tell applicants where to base their business” or how to operate it. It’s fine when there are offshore based portfolio applicants with large amounts of VC money running around and trying to convince cities to operate a valuable and important city infrastructure. But allow the city to decide whom they pick – don’t let VC money “brute force” ownership of city namespaces. Btw: Sadly the “managing” part wasn’t well developed in the first batch of city gTLDs. I think this will dramatically change in the next round. Thanks, Alexander From: Liz Williams [ <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au] Sent: Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 06:39 To: Alexander Schubert <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection! Hello Alexander I wanted to explore a little further your assertion that an applicant for a geo-TLD should be locally based. Our freedom of expression/civil liberties colleagues will have a better handle on those imperatives but I wonder why one would expect an applicant to be located in the community when, for example, a geographic domain name label may be a means of expressing dissent or difference from the current government? It is not a pre-requisite for ICANN to be telling applicants who meet the evaluation criteria that they should be “local”. We also know that the Internet enables us to be wherever we want to be to do business…that is one of the most amazing characteristics of the Internet. It is also not desirable for ICANN to tell applicants where they should locate their businesses. Organisations legitimately and perfectly legally choose the registered location for their business based on, for example, tax treatment, ease of doing business, rule of law, incentives for entrepreneurs, bandwidth and timezone. Those are all good things we wouldn’t want to interfere with. I doubt that it is supportable to have a prohibition on entities applying for several geographic labels. What if it were a good thing that an expert registry operator was able to provide services to communities in unique and attractive ways? I would have thought that is a nice niche business that could benefit communities in good ways? And finally, I don’t understand the problem with domain investors. Those domain name owners are legitimate purchasers of domain names at the second level. Many registry operators are propped up by those investors and the secondary domain name market is active and mature which is another indicator of competition and consumer choice. I think we can all agree that mis-using a domain name, whoever owns it, isn’t a desirable market outcome but there are measures in place to deal with that. Looking forward to the views of others. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs .au Domain Administration Ltd M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757 E: <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> liz.williams@auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> www.auda.org.au Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. On 20 May 2018, at 9:40 pm, Alexander Schubert < <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: Christopher, I completely understand (and support) your notion, that an applicant for a geo-gTLD should be locally rooted; ideally geo-community funded, managed and marketed. And I am completely in agreement with you that we should create policy that prevents that a few big players are blanketing the geo-gTLD space with hundreds of applications each a copy & paste job of the other, with absolutely zero knowledge of the specific city community and no intent to further THEIR specific agenda – instead trying to make money FAST. And obviously letters of non-objection will help a lot – because by 2020 the mayors of a major cities WILL know a bit about the pitfalls of the management for city gTLDs (consultants will bring them up to speed and help them to navigate the jungle of examining the applicants funding, marketing, community-engagement and rooting, management, etc). You suggest a measure to reduce mass land-grab: “Prohibition to apply for several geo-gTLDs for the same entity”. I was a “domainer” (shame on me) since 1997, and then started to create community based gTLDs in 2004 (.berlin was a community owned, funded, managed and designated gTLD application, as was the .gay applicant I founded). I personally know quite a bunch of “domainers turned portfolio applicants”. And I know their abilities, their endurance. They will simply have a legal entity in each city – intelligently managed through notaries acting on their behalf. I am happy to help looking into policy that is designed to stop geo-name land grab; but the measure proposed by you is probably easily to be gamed. Thanks, Alexander _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5