[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Wed May 2 13:32:39 UTC 2018


Dear All
I do not think that we should analyse the distinction between  support and non objection 
For me both has the same destiny
When someone expresses no objection it implicitly means support . However , the option of non objection is a mire cautious expression than that of support
Regards
Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

> On 30 Apr 2018, at 13:13, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
> 
> Dear Liz
> 
> Thanks for your response and for aknowledging that most Governments are bound by the rule of law...
> 
> As to the „non-objection“ (or „support“) letter (I think the AGB 2012 allows for both), I feel it works well e.g. for Governments that have a completely „laisser-faire“ approach, for Governments who may investigate if the application has an impact on any public regulations/policies (and if satisfied that there are none, may just say so and ergo not object), for Governments that apply specific policies/regulations applicable to the names in question, etc. Not objecting is less than supporting - some Governments may lack a legal basis to support, but may have it to not-object (as they may have potential grounds for an objection).
> 
> As to the examples you mention. I feel some or many of us know in some detail the cases of „.africa“ (which was a geoname under the 2012 AGB) and „.amazon“ (which was not - a circumstance that in my view facilitated the growth of this problem in the fordt place). As for „.africa“ there could be lengthy discussions, but I do not think that the instrument of the „non-objection“ letter was really at the source of the conflict...
> 
> Anyway, I feel that it would be interesting to hear about other examples and first-hand experiences with difficulties. This could help us in assessing to what extent such potential issues could be addressed...
> 
> best regards
> 
> Jorge
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams at auda.org.au>
> Datum: 30. April 2018 um 11:30:37 MESZ
> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
> 
> Hello Jorge
> 
> I’d like to take your question in two parts.  The first is that you’re absolutely correct that, in most cases, governments make decisions based on public law.  However, I am not sure how “not objecting” fits with making decisions based on law.  The concept of “non-objection” or tacit approval is, in the ICANN context, I think quite difficult and hasn’t served us well.  Having “approval” to do something is regularly granted by governments based on, for example, licensing conditions for water rights, competition requirements for a telecommunications license, application processes for government funding.    In the case we are talking about here, it is not the situation where governments grant approval for a top level domain.  ICANN opens a process with rules and systems.  Evaluators assess applications, the GAC may give advice, the Board considers that advice but national governments are not the arbiters of rights in top level domain applications.  They are, nonetheless, important stakeholders.
> 
> Then to the second part.  There were many fights about who got the right to have the letters of support for a vast array of types of applications including community applications for .gay, .music and so on.  And, of course, for geographic terms.  The best (or worst depending on your position) example from the 2012 round is .africa which is well documented as is .amazon.   Those conflicts happened after the application process because of, in the first instance, two applicants wanting the same term and, in the second, a global brand wishing to use its company name as a TLD which concerned governments with an important river running through their countries (a vastly over-simplified problem statement used only for illustration).  Many more intense discussions happened before an application was submitted and there are others in the group who can speak to their experiences here.
> 
> And then “letters of non-objection” are very different from letters of approval.  If we are going to use these two different concepts, I would like us to be much clearer about whether they are effective tools to crystallise better applications that are evaluated more smoothly without reference to Board decisions.
> 
> Of course, I welcome different views on other experiences in the hope that we can a) improve on our policy principles, b) our resulting policies and c) our implementation of those policies into more streamlined applications for geographic names.
> 
> Liz
> ….
> Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs
> .au Domain Administration Ltd
> M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757
> E: liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at 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 30 Apr 2018, at 5:40 pm, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
> 
> Dear Liz and all,
> 
> In order to gain a better understanding of your assertion that
> 
> „(letters of non-objection) they are too subjective, fraught with movable political nuance and, in some cases, deeply sensitive geo-political facts (using Jerusalem as the example).“
> 
> could you please refer to specific cases where such problema were observed in the 2012 round?
> 
> Thanks and
> best regards
> 
> Jorge
> 
> ps: in the case of my Government at least, any decision from a public authority has to be motivated, based on law and is subject to review...
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>
> Datum: 30. April 2018 um 07:19:17 MESZ
> An: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
> 
> Hello everyone
> 
> I wanted to start a new thread of conversation about city names ahead of our upcoming conference call.   We are being encouraged by our co-chairs to think about city names as TLDs. The first point is, perhaps, to recognise the “success” of some previous city TLDs including Berlin, Paris, NYC and so on.  Those applications went through very specific requirements for evaluation and, now, hopefully serve the requirements of local communities. We should hope that, in any new round, the experiences of those cities will ease the way for future applications because we have learnt something about how and why applicants apply for place names (and I use the word place deliberately) as top level domain labels.
> 
> For our next round of policy recommendations I wanted to use an example which I think highlights the difficulties we face if we are prescriptive and limited in our analysis.
> 
> Most of us know that Perth is the capital city of Western Australia. It is not the capital city of Australia as Canberra has that honour. Relying on a “is the word a capital city” question is fraught with difficulty.   It is difficult because Perth, Scotland, has at a bare minimum had city status since the 12th century, far longer than Perth, Australia which also has an indigenous place name, its colonial name and a migrant demographic where the largest majority of Perth residents come from England.  Things are complicated by the existence of Perth in Canada which, in its own right, has some features of a capital and, at the very least, some important historic linkages.
> 
> And then we turn to the generic words which Jon Nevett highlighted in a previous post (Bath, Save, New) which are also place names.
> 
> That leads us to what can we usefully and objectively recommend as treatment of other names which are also linked to places and how those could be treated as top level domains.  As a starting point, my recommendation would be that we don’t have any special treatment for place names as TLDs and that applicants for those names would be evaluated against other business and technical criteria just like another application.  However, we might want to think about better ways of handling an objection.  Those objections, from whatever quarter, need to be treated in exactly the same way.  I don’t recommend “letters of support or non-objection”.  They are too subjective, fraught with movable political nuance and, in some cases, deeply sensitive geo-political facts (using Jerusalem as the example).
> 
> I look forward to hearing the views of others.
> 
> Liz
> ….
> Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs
> .au Domain Administration Ltd
> M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757
> E: liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au/><http://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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5


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