[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Marita Moll
mmoll at ca.inter.net
Fri Jun 29 01:12:34 UTC 2018
Thanks Greg, for doing the research that I did not do. I was just
relying on the following footnote on the first page
1. World Population Prospects (2017 Revision)
<https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/>- United Nations population estimates
and projections.
Upon checking this source, however, I see that there is a huge database
of info that worldpopulationreview.com must have used to compile the
info they present on their site -- who knows why they do this, it is
quite a bit of work. There are various sites that use this UN info -- I
guess we could maybe consider it a valid source. Saying that, I am
absolutely not an expert in this kind of data gathering.
Marita
On 6/28/2018 7:01 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Assuming for sake of discussion that a population based list of
> "cities" is useful, identifying a "credible" and accurate database for
> all the "cities" of the world should not be assumed to be easy. The
> database cited, http://worldpopulationreview.com/, does not bear
> strong evidence of "credibility." There is no informatoin about the
> person or entity who runs it. A WHOIS search on ICANN's WHOIS page
> revealed only "ICANN received a Timeout while querying the Registry or
> Registrar’s WHOIS Server." Using their address to look at Google
> StreetView shows a small office park of one-story buildiings in
> Walnut, California, a suburb of Los Angeles (also the name of a nut, a
> tree and a type of wood popular in cabinetry). There is no indication
> that the entity or person is there. The privacy policy reveals that
> someone named Shane has an email address there. The Terms may be
> "lifted" from another site, as they mention Pennsylvania as the choice
> of law for the terms, even though the entity has a California
> address. (Unlike Delaware or New York, Pennsylvania is not a likely
> choice of law for a non-resident.)
>
> The list of cities found at the link "US Cities" on the home page
> is "only" 100 cities long, although the introduction notes: TheUnited
> States
> <http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/united-states-population/>Census
> designates populated regions of the country as 'incorporated places.'
> An incorporated place in the United States includes cities, towns,
> villages and municipalities, among other designations. As of 2015,
> there are over 300 incorporated places in the United States that have
> a population that exceeds 100,000, which is a pretty sizable increase
> overthe 285 recorded in 2012.
> <http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2012/08/number-of-cities-with-six-figure.html>
>
>
> I note that this list is missing the "town" of Hempstead, NY,
> population 700,000+, even though it goes down almost to 200,000. The
> criteria of the list this list came from is unknown; presumably, their
> criteria excluded Hempstead, NY. How many other errors there are I do
> not know.
>
> From the United States page, there is a link to a different list of
> city pages, that goes down to 90,000 (still no Hempstead). This list
> includes each of the fie boroughs of New York City, which are just
> parts of New York City, not "cities" at all. It also lists some New
> York City neighborhoods like Harlem and East Flatbush, and L.A.
> neighborhoods like Koreatown, which are even less defined. It does
> not however list Greenwich Village, my neighborhood, even though
> multiple sources place it's population at 160,000+, well over the
> cut-off for the list.
>
> I could go on but I won't.
>
> Greg
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net
> <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>> wrote:
>
> 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 <http://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
>> <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
>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> >> Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg
>> Wt5 <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
>>
>> 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
>> <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
>> <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
>> <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
>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> <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/20180628/211ffda7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list