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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Sat May 5 17:31:13 UTC 2018 

Also, why do you think that right should have any extraterritorial effect?

On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 1:30 PM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> Jorge,
>
> Can you expand on that, please? Why do you think it’s different, in ways
> that are relevant here? And why do you think it’s superior (assuming you
> do)?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 10:53 AM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
>
>> Dear Greg
>> Luzern has a right on the name as such under civil right, which is
>> qualitatively different.
>> Best
>> Jorge
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> Datum: 4. Mai 2018 um 16:44:19 MESZ
>> An: alexander at schubert.berlin <alexander at schubert.berlin>
>> 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
>>
>> Alexander,
>>
>> You seem to be confusing how patents work and how trademarks work.
>> Patents can accurately be characterized as a “right to exclude.”
>> Trademarks cannot. The company has positive rights in LUCERNE.
>>
>> When enforcing that trademark, the owners of LUCERNE can seek to stop use
>> or registration of a mark that raises a “likelihood of confusion” —
>> basically, the same or similar mark for the same or related goods and
>> services, and for goods and services in the “natural zone of expansion.”
>> I’m not saying they have the right to stop EVERYBODY nor should they, but
>> then again, neither should Luzern.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 10:31 AM Alexander Schubert
>> <alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:
>> Greg,
>>
>> Lucerne Foods, Inc. (an American legal entity) might have acquired trade
>> mark rights in the United States of America – but NOT for “LUCERNE”! The
>> trade mark protection prevents the commercial usage of the trade-marked
>> string “lucerne” - FOR A VERY NARROW SELECTION OF SERVICES AND GOODS.  It’s
>> rather the services and goods that you protect – FOR a certain string. The
>> string itself is free to use by anybody for everything (minus the few goods
>> and services trade-marked).
>>
>> And nobody says that “governments think the rights of governments come
>> first” – it is THE PEOPLE who come first of course – and Governments are
>> merely representing them.
>>
>> 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 Greg Shatan
>> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 9:08 AM
>> To: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
>>
>> Of course Lucerne Foods has a right on Lucerne.  More precisely, they
>> have legitimate interests in and a legal right to Lucerne.  And they have
>> trademark registrations for LUCERNE.  As with any registration they specify
>> goods and services. That doesn’t make their rights less valid.
>>
>> Can you clarify if you believe that the hypothetical applicant for
>> .sandwich should be required to get letters of support or nonobjective from
>> Sandwich, Mass and Sandwich, England? Thank you.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 1:43 AM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
>> Dear Greg
>>
>> Thanks for your reply. “Lucerne Foods” has no right on “Lucerne” – it
>> most probably just has a trademark for “lucerne foods” in very specific
>> categories of products and services (food related I guess).
>>
>> In Switzerland (“Lucerne” as such) would in fact be barred from
>> registration as a business name (as I have said). And the city of Lucerne
>> has a right on its name pursuant 29 Civil Code, so it has clearly a good
>> legal ground to challenge the delegation of the unique resource “.lucerne”.
>>
>> But beyond the Swiss legal system, the delegation of the unique resource
>> which is a city’s name will give rise to political sensitivities, whatever
>> the “intended use”. You need that city government on board. Otherwise you
>> will have a political problem – which is quite natural as city governments
>> have responsibilities, and the name of their city is their main identifier.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Jorge
>>
>> Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>]
>> Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Mai 2018 07:36
>> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
>>
>> Cc: Liz Williams <liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:
>> liz.williams at auda.org.au>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
>>
>> Uniqueness does not convey primacy upon governments.
>>
>> TLDs may be unique, but that does not mean that governments should get a
>> "Trump Card" to block any use of a string with (among other things) a
>> geographic meaning.  I can understand why governments think the rights of
>> governments come first, but that's not going to get us very far.
>>
>> "Use" is absolutely important -- it goes to whether a legitimate right is
>> being exercised or infringed.
>>
>> If Lucerne Foods (www.lucernefoods.com<http://www.lucernefoods.com>),
>> one of the world's largest food producers, wants to apply for .lucerne,
>> they should have the right to do so, without interference from Luzern.  (I
>> assume they have lucernefoods.com<http://lucernefoods.com> because
>> www.lucerne.com<http://www.lucerne.com> was already taken.)
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 1:23 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
>> Dear Greg and all,
>>
>> „Sandwich“ may be a nice example, but fact is that, as I explained, the
>> “use” is not really important, as we only have one string with that city
>> name – TLDs are unique.
>>
>> Therefore, whatever the intended use (a can of worms on its own btw), the
>> unique TLD with the “city name” would be delegated. Think on “.shanghai”
>> delegated for a “non geo-use”. Who would say that would have no
>> implications, that would not arise no political sensitivities?
>>
>> But getting back to my country, if “.luzern” were to be applied for,
>> intending a “non-geo use”, I would very well understand that this would
>> bring about not only political issues but also legal challenges in our
>> country (based on Art. 29 civil code).
>>
>> All this is avoided if you acknowledge the facts (TLDs are unique and
>> political sensitivities are there) and try to put everyone at the table.
>> The non-objection letter does that. It may be improved, based on factual
>> issues detected in the 2012 round – btw: we should of course consult all
>> parties in those issues and get first-hand information from the applicants
>> and public authorities involved – just basing our analysis on hearsay,
>> opinions or third-party reports would not be appropriate (Greg, you will
>> remember that in the “jurisdiction Subgroup” of the CCWG Accountability we
>> followed the same path of only looking at first hand evidence…).
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Jorge
>>
>> Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>]
>> Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Mai 2018 07:07
>> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<http://kom.admin.ch>>
>> Cc: Liz Williams <liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:
>> liz.williams at auda.org.au>>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
>>
>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
>>
>> The burden of non-objection is "fairly" put on the applicant (if at all)
>> only if the intended use of the gTLD is as a "geo TLD."  If the applied-for
>> string is going to be used for other purposes, there should be no
>> opportunity for a non-applicant to block an application.  (If the "place"
>> is another applicant, that's an entirely different situation that I am not
>> covering in this email.)
>>
>> Consider an application for .sandwich as a gTLD geared toward domains for
>> sandwich restaurants, sandwich recipe sites, sandwich fans, sandwich
>> historians, sellers of sandwich ingredients (meats, cheeses, breads,
>> condiments, etc.) or sandwich implements (panini presses, toaster ovens,
>> etc.).  Sandwich, England and Sandwich, Mass. (and the Earl of Sandwich)
>> should have no say in the matter.
>>
>> This is analogous to the treatment of brands.  If Delta Faucets applies
>> for .Delta, Delta Van Lines has no basis for an objection -- because Delta
>> Faucets has a legitimate right.  Delta Van Lines option is to apply or not
>> to apply (even if it is only a "defensive application").  This is a
>> practical and time-tested model that we should use for strings with
>> geographic and other meanings, at least where the gTLDs use is not as a
>> "geo TLD".
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 12:56 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
>> Dear Liz
>>
>> The burden to obtain the non-objection is fairly put on the applicant,
>> who has, as you also say, a direct interest in avoiding objections.
>>
>> The city governments of this world (we have 2000+ in tiny Switzerland),
>> whose name is applied to by an applicant in a widely unknown setting which
>> is ICANN cannot be expected to be privy to such procedures and to be
>> monitoring the rounds of applications. This is of course much more
>> difficult for developing and large countries, whose cities may realize one
>> day that their name was taken as a TLD in a process they did not know,
>> because they did not „object“.
>>
>> To the larger point: you argue/assert that the non-objection letter
>> should not be continued. Alas you have produced no factual basis that would
>> warrant that, beyond one case (africa) where the problems were of an
>> unrelated character, another (amazon) that did NOT fall under the non
>> objection rule, which leaves us with one case (tata) where issues may be
>> analyzed and addressed without changing the system and putting the
>> incentive structure completely upside-down.
>>
>> More broadly speaking, ICANN cannot just ignore the political
>> sensitivities, which are backed by different policies, laws etc. depending
>> on the corresponding country. You need their representatives at the table
>> and non-objecting if you want to avoid protracted issues. These kinds of
>> issues only would grow if you gerrymander those public authorities out of
>> the game.
>>
>> best regards
>>
>> Jorge
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:
>> liz.williams at auda.org.au>>
>> Datum: 4. Mai 2018 um 00:48:00 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: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
>>
>> Hello everyone
>>
>> This thread has brought out some really interesting ideas.  I may have a
>> simpler solution because what we are really talking about, in many cases,
>> is backward looking difficult history from which we need to move on.  We
>> should not be satisfied with a 2007 policy and a 2012 implementation if it
>> continues to “allow” bad policy to chase “poor” implementation.
>>
>> I may have a solution though because what we are essentially talking
>> about also is how a interested stakeholder can express “objection” to
>> something.  I would like to see the end of the “non-objection” process all
>> together, for reasons explained in other posts.  However, “objecting to an
>> application" is still a legitimate course of action for someone to take if
>> they don’t want something to happen.  Here are the steps.
>>
>> 1.  If you support something, say so.  This is really up to an applicant
>> to do the footwork to demonstrate in an application that this has taken
>> place.  We can then think on implementation elements of what that could
>> look like.
>>
>> 2.  If you don’t object to something, allow it to happen.  If you change
>> your mind, you must do it within agreed strict time parameters see point 3.
>> (Non-Objection letters will be a thing of the past).
>>
>> 3.  If you do object, make an appropriately framed objection whoever you
>> are.  Within that objection process, refer to international law, domestic
>> law, ISO standards and so on that are relevant to the applicant & the
>> application.   This takes out the endless discussion here about what should
>> be referred to which causes such trouble.
>>
>> The applicant takes responsibility for ensuring that they submit an
>> application which addresses those points and avoids an objection (all
>> applicants are highly motivated to avoid objections).  An objector must use
>> those standards;  pay for making the objection and submit it within
>> appropriate time frames.  Evaluators then take those objections into
>> account in evaluation.  An objector (whoever they are) must accept that
>> their objection may be discarded by evaluators.
>>
>> Then we can close off the endless circular differences between
>> jurisdictions and we focus on the real work that takes place for an
>> applicant in an application process.
>>
>> I look forward to hearing more from colleagues because this could apply
>> to a) any application and b) geographic terms in particular.   Our policy
>> recommendation then comes around to open process, objective criteria,
>> assumption of compliance with law, competition and innovation.  The points
>> above are then implementation guidelines that improve an AGB.
>>
>> 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<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>
>> 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.
>>
>> On 4 May 2018, at 4:50 am, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:
>> mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:
>> mike at rodenbaugh.com>>> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe Staff can help compile any such laws and cases related to domains?
>> We should deal with concrete examples, as I have given re 4 TLD
>> applications from the last round.
>>
>> Mike Rodenbaugh
>> RODENBAUGH LAW
>> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
>> http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>
>>
>> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:32 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote:
>> Dear Mike
>> There are similar laws in other countries. For Switzerland you can look
>> it up online quite easily (in various languages). There is case-law but I
>> guess the court decisions will be in German and French.
>> Besides, limits to register solely city names and other geographic terms
>> as such as trademarks or business names are also common...
>> On the other hand, as said before, rights on brands are limited to
>> specific categories of products and services...
>> In the end, as said, you have different interests converging on a single
>> string, where in our opinion the public interest is paramount.
>> Best
>> Jorge
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com
>> ><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>>>
>> Datum: 3. Mai 2018 um 19:26:08 MESZ
>> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>
>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>, mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net
>> ><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>> <
>> mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net
>> <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>>, gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>
>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
>>
>> I would like to see the text of such laws, and any cases that apply them
>> to domain names.  I guess there might be one in France too, but I haven't
>> dug into the particulars of the French legal proceedings re France.com<
>> http://France.com>.
>>
>> Mike Rodenbaugh
>> RODENBAUGH LAW
>> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
>> http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>
>>
>> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:19 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote:
>> Dear Mike
>> I mentioned some, eg in Switzerland cities have rights to protect their
>> names under the civil code (art. 29), and provisions prevent the
>> registration of business names and trademarks that solely consist of city
>> names.
>> best
>> Jorge
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com
>> ><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:
>> mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:
>> mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>>>>
>> Datum: 3. Mai 2018 um 19:06:27 MESZ
>> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>>
>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>>, mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net
>> ><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>><mailto:
>> mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net
>> <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>> <mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:
>> mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net
>> >><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:
>> mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>>>,
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>> <
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>>
>> Betreff: 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<http://rodenbaugh.com/>
>>
>> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> 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<mailto:
>> mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:
>> mike at rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:
>> mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:
>> mike at rodenbaugh.com>>><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:
>> mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:
>> mike at rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:
>> mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:
>> mike at rodenbaugh.com>>>>]
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2018 09:49
>> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>>>
>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>>>; mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:
>> mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net
>> >><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:
>> mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net
>> <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:
>> mmoll at ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net
>> ><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>>>;
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> >>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:
>> 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<
>> http://city.com><http://city.com/><http://city.com<http://city.com/>><
>> http://city.com<http://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<http://rodenbaugh.com/>
>>
>> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:28 PM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
>> 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
>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>>><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<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<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:
>> mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net
>> <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:
>> mmoll at ca.inter.net>>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net
>> ><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>><mailto:
>> mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net
>> <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>>>>
>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> >><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto: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<mailto:
>> mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net
>> >><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:
>> mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net
>> <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:
>> mmoll at ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net
>> ><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto: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
>>
>>
>>
>> [cid:image001.png at 01D3E2D4.C11E9F30]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>>>><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>>>> on behalf of Alexander
>> Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin
>> <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>>><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin
>> <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin
>> <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin
>> <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin
>> <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>>>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 5:16 PM
>> To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> >>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:
>> 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
>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<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<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:
>> dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>><mailto:dave at davecake.net
>> <mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:
>> dave at davecake.net>>>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net
>> ><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>><mailto:
>> dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net
>> <mailto:dave at davecake.net>>>>
>> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> >><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto: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><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net
>> >><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:
>> dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>>><mailto:dave at davecake.net
>> <mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:
>> dave at davecake.net>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net
>> ><mailto: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><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:
>> liz.williams at auda.org.au>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:
>> liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:
>> liz.williams at auda.org.au>>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:
>> liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:
>> liz.williams at auda.org.au>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:
>> liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto: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><mailto:
>> liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>><mailto:
>> liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:
>> liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>><mailto:
>> liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:
>> liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>><mailto:
>> liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto: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<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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> >>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> ><mailto: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
>> ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> >>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> ><mailto: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
>> ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> >>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> ><mailto: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
>> ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> >>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> ><mailto: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
>> ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> >>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> ><mailto: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
>> ><mailto: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/20180505/b314c36c/attachment-0001.html>

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