[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Work Track 5 Comments
Alexander Schubert
alexander at schubert.berlin
Sat Jun 30 14:51:24 UTC 2018
Hi Greg,
which is precisely why we should probably not force ICANN to compile “lists”, I agree with you. We make the definition, applicants check their string online, if a place with identical name pops up: the applicant has to do it’s research!
And yes: While a simple rule probably catches 99.9% of all cases – there will be always exceptions, like the this “town” of Hempstead (770k people). We might include some of these outriggers by defining “city” accordingly.
So regardless how a place labels herself (e.g. “town”) when it is matching the city definition; it is counted as city in regard to the AGB. We yet haven’t come up with a sufficient definition of “city” – any suggestions by anybody?
We have to have a relatively SIMPLE rule. We do not want to overprotect, and do not want to have too many entities unprotected. But a set of rules that will serve BOTH narratives will be convoluted and complicated. And the alternative would be: No protections at all! So better a simple rule that covers 99.9% of all cases! We have to be REALISTIC.
And remember: We are talking about a specific category here: the category of non-capital CITIES! These are so important that they had their own category in the past, and should keep their own category! We just have to evaluate whether the most important entities of the category “non-capital cities” should be deemed equally important as capitals (hence no “non-geo use” clause). Boroughs aren’t cities. If we want to protect non-city geo entities: this has to be in ANOTHER category. We can’t continue to conflate categories – we run circles otherwise. 80% of people in for example the U.S. and 75% in Europe live in “cities”. This ultra-important category deserves its own policies – any convolution should be rejected.
My suggestion:
* Keep the city category of the 2012 AGB
* Have a better definition of what a city is!
* Elevate those cities that equal small countries or ISO 3166 Alpha-2 national subdivisions in population size into the same category as capital cities
* Define a fair and easy to compile “threshold” for these “big cities”. Naturally population size comes to mind. Absolute or relative to the country population or a combination
If we do not extra protect “big cities” then we risk that entities with huge populations falling victim to fraudulent applications – and hundreds of thousands if not millions of people are deprived of their freedom of expression.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 2:01 AM
To: Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net>
Cc: 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
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: The <http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/united-states-population/> United States 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 over <http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2012/08/number-of-cities-with-six-figure.html> the 285 recorded in 2012.
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] 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 <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> <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
_______________________________________________
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 <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/20180630/d230734d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list