[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Marita Moll
mmoll at ca.inter.net
Thu Jun 28 20:42:43 UTC 2018
In answer to your question, Alexander, would cities in Ontario (under
normal circumstances) have to solicit support from the province -- no,
I doubt that very much, and I can't see the federal government meddling
in there either. I was merely illustrating that things are always in a
state of flux -- and whatever system we set up has to take that into
account as well. Laws change, cities change, populations move around.
Currently, people are exiting large cities in war-torn countries in the
Middle East and elsewhere. Populations go down as well as up.
So, to your simple, transparent and fair measure to identify cities, I
would suggest we keep these things in mind and try to build in some
flexibility as well. At least, with a population measure, a list based
on credible statistics could maintained in the same way as the country
code list is maintained and amended through a policy process as is now
the case with changes to country names.
Credible databases do exist. The following site *World Population
Review* is full of information about city populations by country with
data sourced through the U.N. Some historical info as well.
worldpopulationreview.com <worldpopulationreview.com/>
Marita
On 6/28/2018 2:41 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
>
> 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
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at 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:*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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> 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/f347680f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list