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

Mazzone, Giacomo mazzone at ebu.ch
Mon May 7 18:47:47 UTC 2018


Dear Greg,

After having read your message, I re-read Jorge’s summary. I cannot find anything that looks like “not neutral, through imitation, exaggeration, and parody”.
Could you explain me where do you find this lack of respect in Jorge’s contribution ?
I think we are trying as WG to debate calmly to find solutions to problems that have origin in the existing differences among jurisdiction and legislation across the world.
I would recommend everybody to stick to facts and to act on good faith. If we do not, the whole logic of the exercise of the WG will be gone.

Thank you in advance to everybody to keep this place of debate as fair as possible.

Giacomo

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: lundi 7 mai 2018 17:43
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

Well, if the idea was to avoid “dueling summaries” and what Liz called “ridiculous circles of oneupmanship”, we have failed.

However, if the idea was to express the view that Liz’s summary wasn’t neutral, through imitation, exaggeration, and parody, this has succeeded brilliantly.

I’m fairly sure this doesn’t help consensus-building, unless we take this for what it is — a platform representing the views of one camp. Helpful in its own way, but it would more helpful if accurately labeled.

Greg

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 1:43 AM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:49:39 MESZ
An: liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au> <liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
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<mailto: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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

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><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au><http://www.auda.org.au>

Important Notice
This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

On 7 May 2018, at 2:34 pm, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> 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<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>>
Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 02:00:49 MESZ
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>>>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names


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<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>

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<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>> 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<mailto: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<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>> 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<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>>> 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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote:
Dear Liz

The burden to obtain the non-objection is fairly put on the applicant, who has, as you also say, a direct interest in avoiding objections.

The city governments of this world (we have 2000+ in tiny Switzerland), whose name is applied to by an applicant in a widely unknown setting which is ICANN cannot be expected to be privy to such procedures and to be monitoring the rounds of applications. This is of course much more difficult for developing and large countries, whose cities may realize one day that their name was taken as a TLD in a process they did not know, because they did not „object“.

To the larger point: you argue/assert that the non-objection letter should not be continued. Alas you have produced no factual basis that would warrant that, beyond one case (africa) where the problems were of an unrelated character, another (amazon) that did NOT fall under the non objection rule, which leaves us with one case (tata) where issues may be analyzed and addressed without changing the system and putting the incentive structure completely upside-down.

More broadly speaking, ICANN cannot just ignore the political sensitivities, which are backed by different policies, laws etc. depending on the corresponding country. You need their representatives at the table and non-objecting if you want to avoid protracted issues. These kinds of issues only would grow if you gerrymander those public authorities out of the game.

best regards

Jorge



________________________________

Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><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>>>
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<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

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<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>>www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au><http://www.auda.org.au><http://www.auda.org.au/><http://www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au/>>

Important Notice
This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

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<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>>>> 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/>

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:32 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote:
Dear Mike
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>><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>>>>
Datum: 3. Mai 2018 um 19:26:08 MESZ
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>>
Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>>, mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>> <mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>>>, gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

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/>>.

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

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:19 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>>> wrote:
Dear Mike
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>>><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>>>>>
Datum: 3. Mai 2018 um 19:06:27 MESZ
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>>>
Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>>>, mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>>> <mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>>>>,gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>>>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

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/>

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>>>> wrote:
Dear Mike

Thanks for your input.

In the end we have different bodies, entities etc. holding interests on one single string. In our view (Swiss perspective), public interest provides for clear limits to private monopolization over geographic names such as city names – this is reflected in law.

Best regards

Jorge


Von: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>>><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>>>><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>>><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>>>>>]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2018 09:49
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>>>>
Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>>>>; mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>>><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<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>>>>;gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>>>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Governments also have infinite, obvious alternatives to <.city> TLDs, such as <.citygovernment>, <.citycouncil>, <.citytourism>, etc.  Perhaps surprisingly, governments have managed to survive for the past 30 years even though they have not had the legal the right to "their" <city.com<http://city.com><http://city.com/><http://city.com/><http://city.com<http://city.com/><http://city.com/>><http://city.com<http://city.com/><http://city.com/>>> or even <city.ccTLD> second level domain names.  They still have no such legal right at any level of the DNS.  Some governments' fantasy to own such rights is just that, fantasy.

To be sure, ICANN is not the proper body to grant governments such a right.  But unfortunately, ICANN went far too far in the last round kowtowing to governments, and requiring the "non-objection" letter.  That led to outright extortion by such well known geographic areas as SPA and BAR, among others, who had nothing more that a fantasy to control TLD rights to that name, plus ICANN's ill-advised, non-community-consensus requirement of the non-objection letter.  As I recall (and I could be wrong and will eat my shoe), that was an ICANN Staff implementation gift, not part of the consensus policy passed by GNSO and the Board.  Even if it was, it was ill-advised then, and should be eliminated for future rounds.

Country codes have been given special status in the DNS with ccTLDs and correspondent restrictions at the second level of the New gTLDs.  That was an original gift to national governments, extended stupidly to the second level by ICANN in the last round, solely to appease government obstructionists in that last round.  Subsidiary governments need to get over this; they don't have further rights to "their" name in the DNS.  Period.

Paris, France has no greater rights to .PARIS than Paris, Texas.  Or Paris Hilton.  Period.  But I would love to hear them fight out that issue.  ICANN certainly should not have predetermined it in favor of France or Texas, to the detriment of Ms. Hilton (and so many other legitimate users of the word Paris).  All three of those parties (at least) had equal rights to that TLD, and should have been put into a contention set to resolve it.

In substantial part, governments continue to rehash arguments made by IGOs in the various IGO Names policy discussions.  Those IGOs get nowhere with the broader GNSO community because they only have fantasy rights to "their" names (in many cases) and acronyms (in almost all cases).  So they scream to the Board and have delayed finality in those discussions for half a decade already.  But the GNSO is never going to agree with them, and the GNSO has primary TLD policy responsibility under the Bylaws, not the GAC.  Eventually, the Board must side with the GNSO, though they will put that off forever if they can, as they have done with IGO Names issues.

This GNSO group ought not be considering government pressure or fantasy rights.  If the Board wants to do so, that is their prerogative.  We need to develop policy in the real world, where governments coexist with businesses and other users of "their" names.  They have done so for 30 years.  I am confident in stating that not a single government has fallen, nor even been harmed, by the ability of absolutely anyone to register "their" name at the second level or at the top level.  Until any such harm is shown, why are we even discussing this?  What problem are we trying to solve, exactly?



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

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:28 PM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>>>> wrote:
Dear all

The fundamental flaw with such an approach is that it forgets that TLDs are unique. There can be only one TLD with a given city name. there can be only one delegation of such a string.

City governments have political, social, historical, economic and legal responsibilities over their cities, and have (at least in Switzerland and other countries) rights on the names of their cities. There might be several cities with the same name, but under the 2012 AGB you had to obtain the non-objection from all of them if that was the case.

As for brands there may be unlimited numbers of business names and trademarks that use a given city name, usually as part of their names (e.g. City “insurances”, City “salami”, City “whatever”…) and with figurative elements beyond the name as such (the color, the font, symbols, etc.). For instance in Switzerland you are not allowed to register a city name as such as a business name – because this would mean that a private business is monopolizing that geographic name.

Hence the crux, resolved in 2012 by the non-objection letter, was that several interests (public interests of a wide spectrum represented by the cities, community interests and multiple commercial interests in the form of brands) may converge on one string, one city name, one TLD.

The non-objection letter was and is in our view a good way to get the more specific interests backing one application to a table with those who represent the corresponding city (and its public policy interests), in order to try to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution…

Best regards

Jorge

Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>>>>>] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2018 06:27
An: Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>>><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<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>>>>>
Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>>>>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

We need to distinguish between two major groups of potential use cases that arise when there is an application for a string that (among other things) is a geographic term:

1.  The Geo Case:  The case where a new gTLD applicant want to operate the gTLD as a "geographic" TLD (e.g., .berlin, .nyc, .africa)
2.  The Non-Geo Case: The case where a new gTLD wants to operate the gTLD as something other than a geographic TLD -- a .brand, a generic gTLD, a restricted gTLD (e.g., .tata, .spa, .amazon, .patagonia)

For the Geo Case, it may be that there are few instances where support/non-objection letters caused problems in the 2012 round.  One "problem" instance is .africa.  One would have to look at the universe of cases to determine whether all the rest worked well or not.

For the Non-Geo Case, it is clear that there were multiple instances where support/non-objection letters or similar exercises of power did cause problems.  We can start with all four of the examples I've cited above.  I would be curious to know if there were Non-Geo Cases that didn't have problems.

I think we have to consider these use cases separately.  The considerations that apply when a TLD will be operated as a geo TLD (e.g., Roma for Romans) do not apply when the TLD will be operated for other purposes (e.g., .sandwich for a food-related TLD -- Sandwich, MA was incorporated in 1639 and named after Sandwich, England, which is obviously older).  Blending them together just obscures the issues.

Greg



On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>>><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<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>>>>> wrote:

Yes, cities can have long history in older cultures -- wars were fought and people died over them.



In Canada, municipal governments are subdivisions of their province. While they have autonomy on most decisions, all by-laws passed are subject to change by the provincial government at any time. So cities exist at the pleasure of the provincial governments.



Leaves one to wonder if the province could deny the city the right to it's TLD.:-( This is a pretty slippery slope......


Marita

On 5/2/2018 11:17 AM, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote:

Dear all,



Cities have been founded, incorporated and given various privileges - including their names - in the course of history by kings and emperors and other assorted authorities, and in my non-lawyer´s mind, documents attesting to those acts, scribbled on parchment or whatever, are the legal basis. More important, from end-users´ point of view, is the political ownership felt by the citizens.



For reference,  attached please find an excerpt of the founding document  of my home city Tampere/Tammerfors in 1779, signed by king Gustaf III.



Best,



Yrjö



[cid:image001.png at 01D3E2D4.C11E9F30]





________________________________
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>>>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>>>>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>>>><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>><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><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>>>>>
Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 5:16 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names


Dear Greg,



You write:
       “…..but a ‘first right’ based on a geographic name is troublesome on several levels. But one fundamental question jumps out -- what right is this first right based on?”

If we talk about sizeable (or otherwise “important”) cities:

Nobody has a “first right” obviously. Why should anybody. But if a string is (should be) poised to serve as identifier for a sizeable amount of people (e.g. larger cities) – I think we do not have to search for “international law”; it should be self-evident that such an infrastructure resource like a city-gTLD is NOT assigned lightly to “some entity” – but that the representatives of the city are looped in. There is morality and a “sense of common good” OUTSIDE of established law. At least in Good Old Europe.



But I completely agree with you if we talk about “minor” geographical entities – such as a small stream or a hill. Or a tiny dwelling somewhere in the nowhere. Especially if there is an entity that is MUCH better known to the public (e.g. a well-known brand  vs. a small mountain) or if it is identical to a generic term: “.new” and the New River.

The big question is: How do we policy the line that separates the entities that deserve “protection” from the rest? A repository? Lists of any sort? Population size? Or maybe a panel that decides case by case (caution: Beauty contest alarm)? But having no protections at all is not going to work. To LOWER the already low bar is bonkers in my mind. I wish GAC would pay more attention – there are forces trying to take away DNS infrastructure from The People.


Thanks,



Alexander.berlin







From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>>>>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 7:42 AM
To: David Cake <dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>>>>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>>>>>
Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names



I find myself generally in agreement with Liz Williams.  There are more nuances to unpack than I have time for, but a "first right" based on a geographic name is troublesome on several levels. But one fundamental question jumps out -- what right is this first right based on?  Is there a legal basis for this?  (Jorge tells us that his government would make a decision "based on law", so it would be useful to know what law we're talking about.)  Requiring a "letter of support or non-objection" is also troublesome and not just for the reasons Liz mentions.  (I hope we do not have to pore through each of the letters of support/non-objection from the first round to highlight the problems they cause, but if we are going to, this should be a job for the WG as a whole, not an assignment for Liz.)  I recognize that, as Jorge say, it "works well for governments."  Well, of course it does!  It completely favors governments, and was imposed by governments (i.e., the GAC).  The problem is that it doesn't work well for anyone else, and it is not well-grounded in the rule of law (unless we are thinking of something akin to the droit de seigneur, or perhaps the Divine Right of Kings).



I don't know if I'll be able to be on any part of the call starting shortly, since it is running from 1-2:30 am my time, and I don't do well on 4 hours of sleep....  If am not, please accept my apologies.



Greg









On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:48 PM, David Cake <dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>>>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net><mailto:dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>>>>>> wrote:

Perth is not even unique within Australia, there is a small town in Tasmania. But the point about ambiguity remaining even if we restrict it to concepts like ‘capital’ is a very good one.



David (resident of the Western Australian Perth)



On 30 Apr 2018, at 1:18 pm, Liz Williams <liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>>>>> wrote:



Hello everyone



I wanted to start a new thread of conversation about city names ahead of our upcoming conference call.   We are being encouraged by our co-chairs to think about city names as TLDs. The first point is, perhaps, to recognise the “success” of some previous city TLDs including Berlin, Paris, NYC and so on.  Those applications went through very specific requirements for evaluation and, now, hopefully serve the requirements of local communities.  We should hope that, in any new round, the experiences of those cities will ease the way for future applications because we have learnt something about how and why applicants apply for place names (and I use the word place deliberately) as top level domain labels.



For our next round of policy recommendations I wanted to use an example which I think highlights the difficulties we face if we are prescriptive and limited in our analysis.



Most of us know that Perth is the capital city of Western Australia.  It is not the capital city of Australia as Canberra has that honour.  Relying on a “is the word a capital city” question is fraught with difficulty.   It is difficult because Perth, Scotland, has at a bare minimum had city status since the 12th century, far longer than Perth, Australia which also has an indigenous place name, its colonial name and a migrant demographic where the largest majority of Perth residents come from England.  Things are complicated by the existence of Perth in Canada which, in its own right, has some features of a capital and, at the very least, some important historic linkages.



And then we turn to the generic words which Jon Nevett highlighted in a previous post (Bath, Save, New) which are also place names.



That leads us to what can we usefully and objectively recommend as treatment of other names which are also linked to places and how those could be treated as top level domains.  As a starting point, my recommendation would be that we don’t have any special treatment for place names as TLDs and that applicants for those names would be evaluated against other business and technical criteria just like another application.  However, we might want to think about better ways of handling an objection.  Those objections, from whatever quarter, need to be treated in exactly the same way.  I don’t recommend “letters of support or non-objection”.  They are too subjective, fraught with movable political nuance and, in some cases, deeply sensitive geo-political facts (using Jerusalem as the example).



I look forward to hearing the views of others.



Liz

….
Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs
.au Domain Administration Ltd
M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757
E: liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au>>>>> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au><http://www.auda.org.au/><http://www.auda.org.au/><http://www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au/><http://www.auda.org.au/>><http://www.auda.org.au/>

Important Notice
This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.



_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5



_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5




_______________________________________________

Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list

Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>>>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5


_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5


_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5




_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5




_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5


_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**************************************************
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
**************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180507/bc02114e/attachment-0001.html>


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