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

Timo Võhmar timo.vohmar at internet.ee
Mon May 7 15:02:17 UTC 2018


Thank you Jorge for your tireless effort in this discussion. I do strongly
support your points and points of few others here and appreciate the
summary very much. I would just like to add my own angle on the matter. I
strongly believe that interests of communities must come before corporate
ones - internet is for people. So naming your company after a famous jungle
or well known river or country, city or any other geographic term should
not give any special rights to that name. Likewise registering a trademark
Fabulous Estonia should not, and to my understanding does not give any
special privileges toward terms Fabulous nor Estonia separately. I do think
that countries, cities should have priority to established names because
these usually represent larger communities and wider variety of interests.

To solve the question of Amsterdam, Athens etc I think Alexander has
pointed out a good approach - sharing, if the communities of the cities
have common interest in use of the TLD. Lets think how to facilitate and
support it from the ICANNs side.

To deal with the risk of "greedy governments" naming their cities after
famous corporations just to have that cool TLD - maybe the basis to decide
who gets the delegation should be historical data - which one was
established first - city or the company/organisation/trademark.

When it comes to the letter of non-objection - until we have not come up
with better solution I do not see the way to drop it. I personally prefer
letter of support.

Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar


On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:01 PM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

> Dear Paul
>
>
>
> The requirement is already established in the 2012 AGB for good reason:
>
>
>
> „ In the event that there is more than one
>
> relevant government or public authority for the applied-for
>
> gTLD string, the applicant must provide documentation of
>
> support or non-objection from all the relevant governments
>
> or public authorities. It is anticipated that this may apply to
>
> the case of a sub-national place name.”
>
>
>
> In your ideas you forget many things, (1) that city governments are not
> aware of ICANN; (2) that we are not talking about auctions here; (3) that
> the interest represented by the cities in their names is of a general,
> public nature, linked to their political, economic, social etc.
> responsibilities vis-à-vis the denomination of their city.
>
>
>
> Lucerne the city is not just a business or a company that happens to use
> the cities name as part of its commercial identification for specific
> products and services. Lucerne is a political entity, with quite a long
> history, a reputation, and a responsibility to protect the interests of its
> citizenship, which include their identity and their name as a political
> community. This may be difficult to understand for you, but is reflected in
> local law in Switzerland in different manners. A local law that ICANN would
> need to respect as it is applicable.
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *Von:* Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com]
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 7. Mai 2018 15:47
> *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>;
> annebeth.lange at norid.no; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Betreff:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
>
>
>
> If your proposal really is that every city in the world that has Athens in
> its name must sign off on who gets Athens or that the city of Sandwich MA
> (as small but pleasant place BTW) can stop the delegation of Sandwich, I
> disagree.
>
>
>
> My feasible solution is simple – nobody gets priority.  When/If the
> .sandwich TLD is offered up, everyone should get notice of that fact.  We
> might even send as special invitatation to Sandwich MA and Sandwich, UK
> (and any other Sandwichs out there) all of who can, if they choose, submit
> applications.  The one that meets the criteria best, gets the TLD, just
> like in any other auction.
>
>
>
> Works quite well.  And if the .Sandwich folks run afoul of local Sandwich
> law in the UK, they’ll have to deal with it in the UK.  Your proposal that
> “it is up to the parties” to get the best result is exactly right.  The
> problem is that you would give Lucerne a veto power.  Everyone who studies
> economics knows that this sort of priority causes rent-seeking, distorts
> markets and is economically counter-productive.  I understand why Lucerne
> wants to export its rights globally.  I would too in their position.  But
> recognizing local law applied locally is not the same as giving global
> effect to Swiss law.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
>
>
>
> *From:* Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 7, 2018 9:40 AM
> *To:* paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com; annebeth.lange at norid.no;
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
>
>
>
> Dear Paul
>
>
>
> Thanks for dropping that „international law“ „requirement”. It certainly
> would be useful if you also considered the importance of the Bylaws
> provision that ICANN has to act in conformity with applicable local law.
> You may not like that, but it is a fact of the framework we work with.
>
>
>
> Apart from that, as far as I know this discussion about “letter of
> non-objection” is about obtaining a non-objection from the relevant public
> authorities. If there are multiple cities with the very same name, from all
> of them equally, as is provided for in the AGB.
>
>
>
> Obtaining the letter of non-objection is a requirement for the application
> to go forward, but does not give you a “right” to the TLD – that will
> depend on complying with all the other requirements and going through all
> the process.
>
>
>
> And obtaining such a letter is open to any interested applicants, be it
> brand owners with interests on trademarks which may coincide with that city
> name, be it communities, be it private business, etc.
>
>
>
> It is up to the parties to come up with the best agreement in their shared
> interest.
>
>
>
> I would appreciate that you would propose constructive and feasible
> solutions that would respect the interests and rights of cities in their
> names. Just ignoring such interests and rights is the best recipe for
> protracted conflicts between applicants and relevant public authorities,
> which is something we have seen happening in some applications regarding
> terms with geographic significance not falling under the “non-objection”
> rule.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>]
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 7. Mai 2018 15:24
> *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>;
> annebeth.lange at norid.no; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Betreff:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
>
>
>
> No  I am calling for those, like you, who are seeking to take priority
> over other people to justify that.  So far all you have offered is the
> anodyne view that “cities have history.”  That is, to my mind, insufficient
> (and also inaccurate, but that is another matter).  If the multistakeholder
> model is to mean anything it is to mean working of a set of standards that
> are of general applicability – not the rule of the powerful.
>
>
>
> So, if we are just “voting” my vote is that city names are not to be given
> priority.  To many of them are multiplicious (see, e.g. Athens – who gets
> that one); too many have become part of common useage (e.g. Sandwich) and
> too many of them are just subterfuges for protectionism.
>
>
>
> Until you can identify a neutral principle that works from behind the
> Rawlsian veil of ignorance, all you are doing is asserting “I should win
> because my view of the importance of city names is a higher value than your
> view of intellectual property.”
>
>
>
> Sorry, that’s not persuasive.  Show me a rule or a policy that existed
> before this debate began and I’ll consider it.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
>
>
>
> *From:* Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 7, 2018 8:53 AM
> *To:* paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com; annebeth.lange at norid.no;
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
>
>
>
> Dear Paul
>
>
>
> Your requirement starts from an erroneous assumption, i.e. that we need
> international law for our policy options.
>
>
>
> As said before, we are in ICANN do develop policy in a multistakeholder
> fashion, with the global public interest as ultimate goal. Pursuant to the
> Bylaws, international law and applicable local laws have to be respected in
> that journey, but they do not determine the full body of policy – otherwise
> we would not be here…
>
>
>
> Or are you calling for an international body to take over the tasks of the
> multistakeholder model which is ICANN?
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Paul Rosenzweig
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 7. Mai 2018 14:44
> *An:* 'Annebeth Lange' <annebeth.lange at norid.no>;
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
>
>
>
> So here is a specific proposal:  “No geo name gets priority unless it is a
> name recognized in international law or by some international body of
> standard setting.  No geo name gets priority if it is held by more than one
> geo location.”
>
>
>
> I have asked, twice, for those supporting the city names to identify
> either international law or an international standard for defining which
> ones are to be given priority.  Supporters have yet to point to any such
> definitive, normative list.  Absent such a list, prioritizing a geo name is
> just picking a winner.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Annebeth Lange
> *Sent:* Monday, May 7, 2018 5:55 AM
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
>
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> As one of the co-chairs in WT5 I have followed the discussion but kept
> myself in the background to see where this discussion leads. As co-chairs
> we have to be neutral, even if the 4 of us represent different SO/AC groups
> and, I am sure, have different views.  But we all want to get a solution
> that is predictable and as close to full consensus as possible.
>
>
>
> However, I would like to remind members to only add new points rather than
> reiterating the same points already raised and to focus on a specific task
> or topic at hand. It is not easy for those of us not having English as our
> mother tongue formulate our opinions and we do not have the power of
> argumentation that those with English as native language have. This should
> also be thought of. I am afraid there are members in WT5 that is totally
> overwhelmed by this and do not feel it within their power
>
> to go against those strong and competent comments. Still, I encourage
> everyone interested in this issue to raise their voice.
>
>
>
> It is obvious that the differences are huge between the SO/ACs on this
> issue. And I do feel that the conversation is going in circles here. It
> would be good if members submit specific proposals that take all views into
> consideration.
>
>
>
> I would like to remind you and highlight some resources as starting points
> for discussion regarding proposals -- there are a number of proposals put
> forward in the 2017 webinars that might be helpful to draw on:
>
>
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2017-04-25+
> Geographic+Names+Webinars
>
>
>
> In addition, the facilitators of the geo names sessions at ICANN59 did a
> very good job of summarizing some of the underlying interests and possible
> paths forward, based on interviews with different stakeholders and input
> through discussions at the meeting (see slides):
>
>
>
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=66081677
>
>
>
> Some of this might provide inspiration in the discussion on ways to create
> greater structure.
>
>
>
> Thanks to everyone for your eagerness and dedication to discuss this
> issue. As a last point, I would like to remind you that also the AGB 2012
> rules on cities were a compromise, that the multistakeholders used long
> time to find and that have worked quite well even if not everybody got what
> they wanted.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Annebeth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of "Mazzone, Giacomo" <mazzone at ebu.ch>
> *Date: *Monday, 7 May 2018 at 09:54
> *To: *"Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
>
>
>
> Dear Jorge,
>
> This seems to me a more balanced summary of the discussion.
>
> There are some points that could be even more motivated (I see ,for
> instance, that you don't mentioned the cases from Italy that I mentioned in
> my mails, like "Capri" , where international brands company where denied to
> use these names in the Court without previous agreement of the local
> authorities) but we can improve the wording later.
>
>
>
> Thank you Jorge for this work.
>
> Giacomo
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> 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
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
>
> Sent: lundi 7 mai 2018 07:43
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Here is another summary of the issue, which could help co-leads in
> preparing their third party-recap:
>
>
>
> - TLDs are unique. If a string composed by one name as such is delegated
> others with an interest on that name will be prevented from using that name.
>
>
>
> - Distinctions based on intended use is therefore not helpful. "Intended
> use" limitations also imply impractical enforcement challenges that would
> be posed by any circumventing on intended use by third parties, such as
> registrants...
>
>
>
> - city names are geographic terms that have political, historical,
> economic (sometimes religious) and social connotations for the populations,
> communities affected.
>
>
>
> - city governments have responsibilities over their names as their primary
> identifiers in social, national, political and economic interactions and as
> identification of their peoples.
>
>
>
> - Their responsibilities are laid down in different public policy and law
> instruments (in Switzerland we have seen that they, inter alia, have rights
> on their names under civil right). The city name is subject to
> general/public interests representent by that city government. City
> governments act according to the laws of the countries they are established
> and accountable under them.
>
>
>
> - City names as such are not subject to rights by private parties. A
> monopolization of a city name by private parties is forbidden under laws
> pertaining to business names and trademark registration in a number of
> jurisdictions. Trademark interests to city names refer normally to composed
> names ("lucerne foods") and are limited to specific products and services
> in certain jurisdictions, in order to avoid consumer confusion. They
> protect against others using that name in that category of products or
> services who generate confusion in the consumer. (please refer to Nicks
> Email on this).
>
>
>
> - Applicants for a string (eg of a city name) have a specific and direct
> interest to their application, are interested in certainty and in not
> receiving objections when they are well into an application process. Such
> applicants are aware of ICANN and its procedures, as this is a prerequisite
> for obtaining the delegation.
>
>
>
> - Applicants will usually be aware that the string they wish to apply for
> is also a city name. If not they can do a search and identify potential
> cities with that name. ICANN and GAC Members can help identifying relevant
> public authorities (AGB 2012).
>
>
>
> - City Governments (hundreds of thousands worlwide) do not know ICANN.
> They cannot be expected to monitor its proceedings and actively look for
> their city names being applied for and to object within deadlines they
> ignore.
>
>
>
> - Non-objection-letters worked generally well under the 2012 AGB, in 60+
> cases.
>
>
>
> - Only few cases (1-2) have been referred to where potential issues with
> the "non-objection" as such were identified.
>
>
>
> - Further study of such cases could be warranted, considering evidence
> from the parties involved, i.e. both applicants and relevant public
> authorities. This analysis could warrant identifying improvements to the
> non-objection-letter. At the same time, the fact that no agreement was
> found between applicants and city governments may have different,
> legitimate causes.
>
>
>
> - Non-objection letters fairly puts the burden on the party with specific
> and direct interests in the application to reach out to the relevant public
> authorities of the corresponding city. It gets those specific
> interest-holders on a table with the representatives of the public interest
> of the people living in the city with that name. This system allows for
> different solutions to be worked out between the parties, which may go from
> "laisser-faire", to participation in governance of the string, to joint
> initiatives etc.
>
>
>
> - If more than one city has the same name, all benefit equally from the
> nom-objection instrument, as all have a say.
>
>
>
> - Potential issues to be further analysed:
>
>
>
> a) cases where issues arose with the non-objection letter as such.
> Improvements to the non-objection letter system.
>
>
>
> b) ...
>
>
>
>
>
> Hope this is helpful
>
>
>
> best
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Von: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
>
> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:49:39 MESZ
>
> An: liz.williams at auda.org.au <liz.williams at auda.org.au>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Dear Liz
>
>
>
> Thanks, but one has to reflect all views when you try such a thing. You
> just summarize the views of those people with your views. And you conclude
> it with your initial statement (100 messages ago) on the
> non-objection-letter, without having considered the arguments of others...
> that, you may concede, is not quite objective...
>
>
>
> To be short: we have four very capable co-leads and staff, let's them do
> their job and produce a third-party summary of the discussion so far.
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams at auda.org.au>
>
> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:43:24 MESZ
>
> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
>
> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>
> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> If you want to do a better job of summarising things as we track along, go
> right ahead.  That task is always open to anyone on the group, the
> co-chairs and ICANN staff supporting the work.  I really don't give a fig
> who does it.it just needs to be done so that we are moving along
> diligently.  Otherwise we end up in ridiculous circles of oneupmanship
> which I don't care for.
>
>
>
> I've done more than enough in my time of trying to read rough consensus,
> considering differing points of view and trying to come up with best
> practice that I really don't mind who does what.
>
>
>
> It all needs to be fed back to the bigger SubPro group and then to the
> GNSO and then to the Board and then to public comment so we are MILES from
> any final position.
>
>
>
> 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
> <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 7 May 2018, at 2:34 pm, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<ma
> ilto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Liz
>
>
>
> I guess that you mean that this is a good summary of the opinions
> expressed by some, but which do not represent those expressed by many
> others (e.g. Alexander, Kathrin, Nick, Giacomo, Marita, Yrjo, Nouar,
> Kavouss... and I).
>
>
>
> Let's leave these summaries to the co-leads. Otherwise we will have many
> different summaries.
>
>
>
> best
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams at auda.org.au<mail
> to:liz.williams at auda.org.au> <liz.williams at auda.org.au%3e>>
>
> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 02:00:49 MESZ
>
> An: Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>
> <mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e>>
>
> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<
> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e>>
>
> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello everyone
>
>
>
> I am really pleased that this thread has yielded such a diverse set of
> perspectives.  I wanted to, if we could, try to wrap up some things that we
> may or may not have consensus on so that we can discuss that on the next
> call.  That might help the co-chairs and staff?
>
>
>
> 1.  We want to continue to have clear, objective and fact based policies
> associated with the assessment of all TLD applications.  This, of course,
> includes geographic terms.
>
>
>
> 2.  We need to have clear application evaluation procedures that ensure
> that the ICANN Board, GAC, applicants understand exactly what their
> respective roles are.   In a multi-stakeholder environment, no one has
> primacy over another.  The GAC is very different from national governments
> and can only provide collective consensus advice to the ICANN Board.  The
> GAC has no operational role.  However, individual member governments may
> have different opinions about specific applications for TLDs.
>
>
>
> These two things are no different from what we had hoped would happen in
> previous rounds.  Where we have diverged is that the role of the Board and
> GAC and the ICANN organisation dramatically changed the implementation of
> the evaluation process for many applicants.  Interference in the evaluation
> process was problematic and unfair as has been demonstrated in numerous
> examples.  We need to address that unfairness in implementation suggestions.
>
>
>
> For the next round, I would suggest that we, at a policy level, do not
> change 1 above.  However, we should have plenty to say on the
> implementation of those policies because, given the level of
> disagreement/misunderstanding/positioning, we are not in agreement.
>
>
>
> From listening to the discussion I think we have general consensus that
>
>
>
> 1.  Geographic terms are important for the next round of applications for
> many reasons which are consistent with ICANN's Mission and Core Values.
>
>
>
> 2.  That the expansion of "lists" of things is not an effective or useful
> or reliable way of determining what could be in or out beyond ISO
> 3166.  Expansion of the application of national law into the international
> realm of the domain name system is neither effective or appropriate.  We
> already have in place numerous elements which can be relied upon by
> applications and evaluators to fairly and predictably "treat" applications
> for TLD labels that may have geographic significance.
>
>
>
> 3.  We agree that governments  may be concerned with geographic terms but
> they do not own them or control or have a right of veto over an
> application.  Governments are legitimate applicants for geographic
> terms.  They are also legitimate objectors, like any one else, to
> applications.
>
>
>
> Looking forward to hearing other views but I hope that we, finally, get
> rid of the "non-objection" artifact which can be capricious (if a
> government changes), subjective (because we haven't successfully
> articulated what non-objection looks like on a consistent basis), and it is
> much easier to either support something or object to it (using clearly set
> out guidelines).
>
>
>
> Best wishes.
>
>
>
> 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
> <liz.williams at auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto: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%3e%3chttp:/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 7 May 2018, at 9:24 am, Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:
> mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>
> <mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> I want to thank Alexander for so ably expressing a view that I can really
> resonate with. Cities are as unique and culturally relevant as countries --
> many of them have been around longer than the countries they now reside in
> (Istanbul). Would it be possible to create a list of cities that are large
> enough that their names should be treated as reserved for the use of the
> people of that city to identify themselves just as countries do through
> ccTLD's? Could we set the conditions that would lead to such a list?
> Inevitably, some cities would be excluded and seek inclusion. But we have
> to start somewhere.
>
>
>
> Marita Moll
>
>
>
> On 5/5/2018 1:41 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
>
> Robin,
>
>
>
> I think you and I share a certain "distain" for regulation exercised
> through "Governments". You write:
>
>
>
> "It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent
> that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that
> misrepresentation should be key in our analysis."
>
>
>
> You and Greg are seemingly working off the assumption that somebody wants
> to help GOVERNMENTS to "protect" their territories in the DNS. But why
> don't you and Greg ever think about THE PEOPLE? I honestly couldn't care
> less about Governments - but I do care very much and very passionate about
> PEOPLE. And we need to make sure that the constituents of a city are looped
> into the decision what happens to their city name in the DNS. In the 2012
> AGB this was facilitated by CITY Governments (NOT national Governments).
> Forget for a moment about "Governments" - and root for THE PEOPLE: How to
> protect THEM? NOT from "misrepresentation" - but from the ability to
> identify themselves through city gTLD domain names (see the equivalent via
> ccTLDs).
>
>
>
> Hence my proposal to REQUIRE a "community priority application" if the
> string is identical to a ("sizeable") city: I want that THE PEOPLE in a
> city are INVOLVED. Not enough to just go to the major, promise 85% of
> (diluted) "profits" - and then blanket the space with hundreds of
> non-managed city gTLDs applied for to "just make big bucks"; instead of
> having locally managed and promoted CITY initiatives that THRIVE!
>
>
>
> 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 Robin Gross
>
> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 7:20 PM
>
> To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>><
> mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>
> 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
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> >
>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
>
>
>
> On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailt
> o:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3e>> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> I think Greg's suggestion to focus on intended use is a very helpful
> suggestion for our work.  It allows us to focus on whether or not someone
> is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I
> think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis.  We don't want
> to encourage a misrepresentation, but we also are obligated to recognize
> competing legitimate interests to the same term and in cases where there is
> no misrepresentation connected with the intended use of TLD with geographic
> meaning, those applicants should be allowed to go forward, unless they
> violate international law on some other ground.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robin
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailt
> o:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3e>> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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<m
> ailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e>>
> 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<mail
> to:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>
> <liz.williams at auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3e>>
>
> 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><mailto:gnso-
> newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e>
> >
>
> 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<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/>
> <liz.williams at auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3e%3ewww.auda.org.au%3chttp://www.auda.org.au%3e%3chttp://www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp://www.auda.org.au%3chttp://www.auda.org.au/%3e>
> >
>
>
>
> 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<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>>
> <mike at rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e>>
> 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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/>
> <http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:32 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<m
> ailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@
> bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e>>
> 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>>
> <mike at rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e>
> >
>
> Datum: 3. Mai 2018 um 19:26:08 MESZ
>
> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<m
> ailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@
> bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e>
> >
>
> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailt
> o:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.
> com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3e%3e>>,
> 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%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e>>
> <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%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3e>>,
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@
> 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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e>>
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@
> 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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e>
> >
>
> 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/><http://France.com<http://france.com/>
> <http://france.com/%3e%3chttp:/France.com%3chttp:/france.com/%3e>>.
>
>
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
>
> RODENBAUGH LAW
>
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
>
> http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/><http://rodenbaugh.com/>
> <http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:19 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<m
> ailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@
> bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><
> mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@
> bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>
> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e>>
> 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>>>
> <mike at rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3e>
> >
>
> Datum: 3. Mai 2018 um 19:06:27 MESZ
>
> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<m
> ailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@
> bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><
> mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@
> bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>
> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e>
> >
>
> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailt
> o: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>>>
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3e%3e%3e>>,
> 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%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3e>>
> <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@
> 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@
> icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<
> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
> <mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e,gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e>>
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@
> 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@
> 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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3e>
> >
>
> 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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/>
> <http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<m
> ailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@
> bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><
> mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@
> 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@
> bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>>
> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3e>>
> 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>>>>
> <mike at rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3e%3e>
> ]
>
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2018 09:49
>
> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<m
> ailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@
> bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><
> mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@
> 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@
> bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>>
> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3e>
> >
>
> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailt
> o: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>>>>
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3e%3e%3e%3e>>;
> 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@
> 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@
> 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@
> 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@
> icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<
> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>
> <mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e;gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3e>
> >
>
> 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<
> http://city.com/><http://city.com/>>
> <http://city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3e%3chttp:/city.com%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3e>>
> 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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/>
> <http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:28 PM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<m
> ailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@
> bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><
> mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@
> 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@
> bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>>
> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3e>>
> 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@
> 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@
> 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>>>>
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3e>]
> 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>>>>
> <mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e>
> >
>
> 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@
> 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@
> 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@
> 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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3e>
> >
>
> 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>>>>
> <mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e>>
> 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@
> icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>>>
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3e%3e%3e>>
> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin<mai
> lto: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>>>
> <alexander at schubert.berlin%3e%3cmailto:alexander at schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander at schubert.berlin%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:alexander at schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander at schubert.berlin%3e%3cmailto:alexander at schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander at schubert.berlin%3e%3e%3cmailto:alexander at schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander at schubert.berlin%3e%3cmailto:alexander at schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander at schubert.berlin%3e%3e%3e>
> >
>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 5:16 PM
>
> To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@
> 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@
> 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@
> 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@
> 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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3e>
> >
>
> 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@
> icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>>>
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org%3e%3e%3e>]
> 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@
> davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave@
> davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>>>><mailto:dave@
> davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave@
> davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>><mailto:dave@
> davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave@
> davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>>>
> <dave at davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3e%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3e%3e%3e>
> >
>
> 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@
> 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@
> 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@
> 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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3e>
> >
>
> 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@
> davecake.net>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave@
> davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave@
> davecake.net>>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave@
> davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave@
> davecake.net>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave@
> davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>>>>
> <dave at davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3cmailto:dave at davecake.net%3e%3e%3e%3e>>
> 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<mail
> to:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.
> au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>><mailto:liz.williams@
> 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>>>>
> <liz.williams at auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3e%3e%3e%3e>>
> 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@
> 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@
> auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:
> liz.williams at auda.org.au>>>
> <liz.williams at auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au%3e%3e%3e>>
> 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/>><http://www.auda.org.au/
> <http://www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au/%3e%3e%3chttp:/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@
> 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@
> 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@
> 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@
> 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%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3e>
> >
>
> 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@
> 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@
> 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@
> 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@
> 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%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3e>
> >
>
> 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@
> 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@
> 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@
> 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@
> 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%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3e>
> >
>
>
>
> 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@
> 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@
> 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@
> 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@
> 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%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3e>
> >
>
> 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@
> 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@
> 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@
> 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@
> 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%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e%3e%3e>
> >
>
> 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@
> 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%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org%3e>
> >
>
> 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
> <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
> <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@
> icann.org <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
> <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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
>
>
>
> **************************************************
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
>
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the system
> manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
> by the mailgateway
>
> **************************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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/20180507/722db586/attachment-0001.html>


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