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

Thu May 3 18:40:44 UTC 2018

It is far beyond ICANN's remit to regulate moral values outside of law.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Alexander Schubert <
alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:

> Not everything is regulated by laws. There are moral values OUTSIDE of the
> law. Too many here seem to see Governments as predatory entities trying to
> “take away rights” from The People. But the interest of The People in
> having control and oversight of their identity (city gTLD) needs to be
> protected, too. Hence The People have to provide a letter of non-objection;
> and logically it is their representatives who facilitate the administrative
> procedure: the local Government.
>
> I do agree that if there is more than ONE sizeable (or otherwise
> “important”) geo entity with the identical name all of them should be
> involved. So we need to come up with a threshold or system under which
> circumstances other cities need to provide letters of non-objection as
> well. Cambridge seems clear – both will have to agree. Berlin? The largest
> other Berlin has about 10k people. Is there a need to acquire a letter of
> non-objection in a case of 3.5 Million vs 10k people? The question is how
> to wrap that in policy.
>
> But to say: “Oh, it’s all complicated, let the portfolio applicants
> blanket the city gTLD space with 1,000+ applications – and then the real
> city initiatives will have to buy the portfolio guys out” – nope. Not going
> to happen.
>
> Btw: 50% of all countries are population-wise smaller than a city like
> Berlin. ALL of these country names will (seemingly again, as in 2012) be
> EXCEMPTED from registration – because not even a letter of non-objection
> was deemed good enough for GAC. Why not granting big cities a similar
> protection as small countries have? Isn’t Tokyo at least as important as
> Latvia? I think definitely YES: 40 Million (Tokyo) vs 2 Million (Latvia) –
> Latvia is protected – so should be Tokyo!
>
> What about a policy element that states: “Cities and other geo-entities
> with a population higher X will need a letter of non-objection from the
> relevant local Government(s)”. Say X equals 100,000 people (needs to be
> discussed). Now every city with more than 100k inhabitants will have to be
> looped in. If there are TWO (Cambridge) – then BOTH have to provide such
> letter. Paris: The Texas one has only 25k people. Too small.
>
> This way large cities are protected. If two share the same name the
> smaller one is protected as well; if it has a sizeable population. MUCH
> better than ZERO protections. Question to the group: Where do we place X in
> the next round? Obviously X can vary from round to round. X = 100k people?
> 50k? Not many city gTLD applicants will form to apply for a smaller city –
> and IF it will surely be a local initiative. Think “.aspen”! The Aspen
> hotel and lodging association can EASILY fund the operation – no need to
> recoup operation costs via registration fees. Different business model
> entirely.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander.berlin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 03, 2018 8:06 PM
> *To:* Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
>
>
>
> Jorge, what law provides for governments to claim superior rights to
> geographic (or any other) domain names?  I am not aware of any, so am eager
> to be enlightened if they exist.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
>
> RODENBAUGH LAW
>
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
>
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
>
> Dear Mike
>
>
>
> Thanks for your input.
>
>
>
> In the end we have different bodies, entities etc. holding interests on
> one single string. In our view (Swiss perspective), public interest
> provides for clear limits to private monopolization over geographic names
> such as city names – this is reflected in law.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com]
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2018 09:49
> *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> *Cc:* Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; mmoll at ca.inter.net;
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
>
>
>
> Governments also have infinite, obvious alternatives to <.city> TLDs, such
> as <.citygovernment>, <.citycouncil>, <.citytourism>, etc.  Perhaps
> surprisingly, governments have managed to survive for the past 30 years
> even though they have not had the legal the right to "their" <city.com>
> or even <city.ccTLD> second level domain names.  They still have no such
> legal right at any level of the DNS.  Some governments' fantasy to own
> such rights is just that, fantasy.
>
>
>
> To be sure, ICANN is not the proper body to grant governments such a
> right.  But unfortunately, ICANN went far too far in the last round
> kowtowing to governments, and requiring the "non-objection" letter.  That
> led to outright extortion by such well known geographic areas as SPA and
> BAR, among others, who had nothing more that a fantasy to control TLD
> rights to that name, plus ICANN's ill-advised, non-community-consensus
> requirement of the non-objection letter.  As I recall (and I could be wrong
> and will eat my shoe), that was an ICANN Staff implementation gift, not
> part of the consensus policy passed by GNSO and the Board.  Even if it was,
> it was ill-advised then, and should be eliminated for future rounds.
>
>
>
> Country codes have been given special status in the DNS with ccTLDs and
> correspondent restrictions at the second level of the New gTLDs.  That was
> an original gift to national governments, extended stupidly to the second
> level by ICANN in the last round, solely to appease government
> obstructionists in that last round.  Subsidiary governments need to get
> over this; they don't have further rights to "their" name in the DNS.
> Period.
>
>
>
> Paris, France has no greater rights to .PARIS than Paris, Texas.  Or Paris
> Hilton.  Period.  But I would love to hear them fight out that issue.
> ICANN certainly should not have predetermined it in favor of France or
> Texas, to the detriment of Ms. Hilton (and so many other legitimate users
> of the word Paris).  All three of those parties (at least) had equal rights
> to that TLD, and should have been put into a contention set to resolve it.
>
>
>
> In substantial part, governments continue to rehash arguments made by IGOs
> in the various IGO Names policy discussions.  Those IGOs get nowhere with
> the broader GNSO community because they only have fantasy rights to "their"
> names (in many cases) and acronyms (in almost all cases).  So they scream
> to the Board and have delayed finality in those discussions for half a
> decade already.  But the GNSO is never going to agree with them, and the
> GNSO has primary TLD policy responsibility under the Bylaws, not the GAC.
> Eventually, the Board must side with the GNSO, though they will put that
> off forever if they can, as they have done with IGO Names issues.
>
>
>
> This GNSO group ought not be considering government pressure or fantasy
> rights.  If the Board wants to do so, that is their prerogative.  We need
> to develop policy in the real world, where governments coexist with
> businesses and other users of "their" names.  They have done so for 30
> years.  I am confident in stating that not a single government has fallen,
> nor even been harmed, by the ability of absolutely anyone to register
> "their" name at the second level or at the top level.  Until any such harm
> is shown, why are we even discussing this?  What problem are we trying to
> solve, exactly?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
>
> RODENBAUGH LAW
>
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
>
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:28 PM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
>
> Dear all
>
>
>
> The fundamental flaw with such an approach is that it forgets that TLDs
> are unique. There can be only one TLD with a given city name. there can be
> only one delegation of such a string.
>
>
>
> City governments have political, social, historical, economic and legal
> responsibilities over their cities, and have (at least in Switzerland and
> other countries) rights on the names of their cities. There might be
> several cities with the same name, but under the 2012 AGB you had to obtain
> the non-objection from all of them if that was the case.
>
>
>
> As for brands there may be unlimited numbers of business names and
> trademarks that use a given city name, usually as part of their names (e.g.
> City “insurances”, City “salami”, City “whatever”…) and with figurative
> elements beyond the name as such (the color, the font, symbols, etc.). For
> instance in Switzerland you are not allowed to register a city name as such
> as a business name – because this would mean that a private business is
> monopolizing that geographic name.
>
>
>
> Hence the crux, resolved in 2012 by the non-objection letter, was that
> several interests (public interests of a wide spectrum represented by the
> cities, community interests and multiple commercial interests in the form
> of brands) may converge on one string, one city name, one TLD.
>
>
>
> The non-objection letter was and is in our view a good way to get the more
> specific interests backing one application to a table with those who
> represent the corresponding city (and its public policy interests), in
> order to try to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution…
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] *Im
> Auftrag von *Greg Shatan
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2018 06:27
> *An:* Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net>
> *Cc:* Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
>
>
>
> We need to distinguish between two major groups of potential use cases
> that arise when there is an application for a string that (among other
> things) is a geographic term:
>
>
>
> 1.  *The Geo Case*:  The case where a new gTLD applicant want to operate
> the gTLD as a "geographic" TLD (e.g., .berlin, .nyc, .africa)
>
> 2.  *The Non-Geo Case*: The case where a new gTLD wants to operate the
> gTLD as something other than a geographic TLD -- a .brand, a generic gTLD,
> a restricted gTLD (e.g., .tata, .spa, .amazon, .patagonia)
>
>
>
> For the Geo Case, it may be that there are few instances where
> support/non-objection letters caused problems in the 2012 round.  One
> "problem" instance is .africa.  One would have to look at the universe of
> cases to determine whether all the rest worked well or not.
>
>
>
> For the Non-Geo Case, it is clear that there were multiple instances where
> support/non-objection letters or similar exercises of power did cause
> problems.  We can start with all four of the examples I've cited above.  I
> would be curious to know if there were Non-Geo Cases that didn't have
> problems.
>
>
>
> I think we have to consider these use cases separately.  The
> considerations that apply when a TLD will be operated as a geo TLD (e.g.,
> Roma for Romans) do not apply when the TLD will be operated for other
> purposes (e.g., .sandwich for a food-related TLD -- Sandwich, MA was
> incorporated in 1639 and named after Sandwich, England, which is obviously
> older).  Blending them together just obscures the issues.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> 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>
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert
> <alexander at schubert.berlin> <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
> <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> <dave at davecake.net>
> *Cc:* leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.
> org> <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> 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> 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 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180503/d5f05b49/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 436233 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180503/d5f05b49/image001-0001.png>