[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments

Alexander Schubert alexander at schubert.berlin
Thu Jun 28 18:41:17 UTC 2018


Hi Marita,

if someone applied for a Canadian city, they had to solicit the support from the province as well? I assume only from the city Government. I just wanted to point out that the “letter of non-objection” (“Government support”) DOES NOT provide “Governments” (of countries) with “veto rights”. In opposite: Often city Governments are VEHEMENTLY opposed to their federal Governments – e.g. in the birth land of the Internet! Some U.S.  cities are even completely denying followership and orders of federal authorities (for example “sanctuary cities” are denying to cooperate with ICE raids). City governments are very local, elected by the local constituents and truly representing the LOCAL interests – often AGAINST the national government! Nobody can claim that we would “empower GAC” (or nation states) when we require a letter of non-objection for city name applications. That’s just not the case – rather the opposite. Now there might be a few totalitarian nations where the central Government might want to weigh in. But those should be few; and that’s a structural problem of THAT nation.

But I certainly agree: We need a simply, transparent and fair measure to identify cities that require protections identical to capital cities. Population size is such measure. A mix of absolute and relative to the countries population seems sufficient and fair. If somebody had a database of some 100+ countries, their populations, the biggest cities, and the city populations, and could run a few numbers: that would help us identifying how many cities we would protect! Say if the absolute number was 250,000 inhabitants, and the relative population size 2.5% (of the country’s population):  Latvia has 2 Million people, 2.5% equals 50,000 people. That would protect a mere 4 big cities (outside the capital Riga); but ONLY the capital would otherwise make the 250k threshold.  Would be cool to see a list compiled from those measures – and maybe run it against a dictionary and a list of important brands (not a TM database – EVERYTHING is trademarked, but TMs aren’t “brands”). My assumption: there is a minimal overlap – neither “real brands” nor generic terms would be exposed to extra burdens! But the cities would be protected from vultures and fake “non-geo use” applications! It would be a simple rule that is easy to understand and easy to apply. Applicants simply look up their string in Wikipedia (DON’T TEACH ME ABOUT WIKIPEDIA), if a city pops up they look up the population size of the city (cities) and the nation(s) it is in – if it meets the criteria they need to talk to the city – or cities in the rare case several make the cut! The same is true if a SMALL city wants to apply but there was a BIG city with identical name: Get their OK and you are fine! 

Thanks,

Alexander

 





 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marita Moll
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 8:21 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org >> Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments

 

That's right -- although in some areas, one might also have to deal with one level up -- which in Canada are the provinces. If a province wanted to change the name of a city, here in Ontario,Canada, the city has to comply. Things are always changing.  In 1998, the province forced an amalgamation which created Metro Toronto out of  the regional municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and its six constituent municipalities. As part of this, East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, York, and the City of Toronto (1834) were dissolved by an act of the Government of Ontario.

This happens with countries as well of course (USSR), but it will happen much more frequently with cities. That's another reason to go with a size definition with a few other options for smaller states and perhaps some leeway for historical reasons. The larger the city, the more stable the name. I have no evidence of that, but it seems to make sense. 



Marita



 

On 6/28/2018 10:11 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:

Dear Group,

We are always talking about “Government Support” – and many here share a healthy distain for “Governments” (especially “Federal Governments”). But an applicant for a non-capital city doesn’t need the support by the “federal government” of the respective nation; it is the CITY GOVERNMENT that decides! These are city constituent based city representatives! They know their city best! 

Thanks,

Alexander








 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 1:27 AM
To: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> ; gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> 
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> 
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments

 

No, I didn’t overlook that.  It just transfers the burden to someone else and either makes ICANN the judge of ambiguity or makes ambiguity the rule.   

 

And, no, this is not an easy task … I’m glad you think it is … so I invite the Swiss government to do it for the world :0)  

 

 

 

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig at 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: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>  <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> > 
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 5:31 PM
To: paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> ; gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> 
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> 
Subject: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments

 

Dear Paul

You may overlooked that I suggested that this information may be assembled by ICANN and offered to potential applicants through e.g. an advisory panel – see points (3) and (4) I proposed at the beginning…

In the age of big data that should be simple.

sorry if I did not express this with absolute clarity…

Best

Jorge 

 

Von: Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com] 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2018 16:26
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> >; gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> 
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> 
Betreff: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments

 

I’m not sure that can work – now an applicant would have to be familiar with the law of 190+ nations to determine which are “cities” and which are not and therefore which need to pre-clear the application and which don’t.

 

ICANN is an international organization.  It works because it relies on international standards.  If there is an international standard on what defines a city, that’s a plausible ground (though I would disagree with it in substance).  The idea that an applicant needs to know Swiss law and Bhutanese law and Kazahk law on defining cities is simply not realistic.

 

Paul

 

Paul Rosenzweig

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> > On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> 
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 6:17 PM
To: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> 
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> 
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments

 

 






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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180628/fb205e30/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list