[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
Marita Moll
mmoll at ca.inter.net
Wed May 2 16:30:42 UTC 2018
Yes, cities can have long history in older cultures -- wars were fought
and people died over them.
In Canada, municipal governments are subdivisions of their province.
While they have autonomy on most decisions, all by-laws passed are
subject to change by the provincial government at any time. So cities
exist at the pleasure of the provincial governments.
Leaves one to wonder if the province could deny the city the right to
it's TLD.:-( This is a pretty slippery slope......
Marita
On 5/2/2018 11:17 AM, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
> Cities have been founded, incorporated and given various privileges -
> including their names - in the course of history by kings and emperors
> and other assorted authorities, and in my non-lawyer´s mind, documents
> attesting to those acts, scribbled on parchment or whatever, are the
> legal basis. More important, from end-users´ point of view, is the
> political ownership felt by the citizens.
>
>
> For reference, attached please find an excerpt of the founding
> document of my home city Tampere/Tammerfors in 1779, signed by king
> Gustaf III.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Yrjö
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 2, 2018 5:16 PM
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
>
> Dear Greg,
>
> You write:
> */“…..but a ‘first right’ based on a geographic name is troublesome on
> several levels. But one fundamental question jumps out -- what right
> is this first right based on?”/*
>
> If we talk about sizeable (or otherwise “important”) cities:
>
> Nobody has a “first right” obviously. Why should anybody. But if a
> string is (should be) poised to serve as identifier for a sizeable
> amount of people (e.g. larger cities) – I think we do not have to
> search for “international law”; it should be self-evident that such an
> infrastructure resource like a city-gTLD is NOT assigned lightly to
> “some entity” – but that the representatives of the city are looped
> in. There is morality and a “sense of common good” OUTSIDE of
> established law. At least in Good Old Europe.
>
> But I completely agree with you if we talk about “minor” geographical
> entities – such as a small stream or a hill. Or a tiny dwelling
> somewhere in the nowhere. Especially if there is an entity that is
> MUCH better known to the public (e.g. a well-known brand vs. a small
> mountain) or if it is identical to a generic term: “.new” and the New
> River.
>
> The big question is: How do we policy the line that separates the
> entities that deserve “protection” from the rest? A repository? Lists
> of any sort? Population size? Or maybe a panel that decides case by
> case (caution: Beauty contest alarm)? But having no protections at all
> is not going to work. To LOWER the already low bar is bonkers in my
> mind. I wish GAC would pay more attention – there are forces trying to
> take away DNS infrastructure from The People.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander.berlin
>
>
>
>
> *From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 02, 2018 7:42 AM
> *To:* David Cake <dave at davecake.net>
> *Cc:* leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
>
> I find myself generally in agreement with Liz Williams. There are
> more nuances to unpack than I have time for, but a "first right" based
> on a geographic name is troublesome on several levels. But one
> fundamental question jumps out -- what right is this first right based
> on? Is there a legal basis for this? (Jorge tells us that his
> government would make a decision "based on law", so it would be useful
> to know what law we're talking about.) Requiring a "letter of support
> or non-objection" is also troublesome and not just for the reasons Liz
> mentions. (I hope we do not have to pore through each of the letters
> of support/non-objection from the first round to highlight the
> problems they cause, but if we are going to, this should be a job for
> the WG as a whole, not an assignment for Liz.) I recognize that, as
> Jorge say, it "works well for governments." Well, of course it does!
> It completely favors governments, and was imposed by governments
> (i.e., the GAC). The problem is that it doesn't work well for anyone
> else, and it is not well-grounded in the rule of law (unless we are
> thinking of something akin to the /droit de seigneur/, or perhaps the
> Divine Right of Kings).
>
> I don't know if I'll be able to be on any part of the call starting
> shortly, since it is running from 1-2:30 am my time, and I don't do
> well on 4 hours of sleep.... If am not, please accept my apologies.
>
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:48 PM, David Cake <dave at davecake.net
> <mailto:dave at davecake.net>> wrote:
>
> Perth is not even unique within Australia, there is a small town
> in Tasmania. But the point about ambiguity remaining even if we
> restrict it to concepts like ‘capital’ is a very good one.
>
> David (resident of the Western Australian Perth)
>
>
>
> On 30 Apr 2018, at 1:18 pm, Liz Williams
> <liz.williams at auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>
> wrote:
>
> 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>
> 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
> <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
> 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/20180502/e5101c34/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pastedImage.png
Type: image/png
Size: 436233 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180502/e5101c34/pastedImage-0001.png>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
mailing list