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

Carlos Raul Gutierrez carlosraul at gutierrez.se
Mon May 7 22:34:46 UTC 2018


I like your practical idea in principle {population size cut-off}, but
why not thinking about "relative" size? Why not the 10 largest cities in
a country? Or the 3 largest cities in a sub-national region? Why not
give a chance to small countries and smaller populations? 

_Please think about about poor LUZERN! They didn't join the Swiss
confederation right away in 1315. But after a few year they did 1332.
Just because Luzern is a small canton and Luzern city is much smaller
than quite a few Swiss cities I would hate if your cut-off rules would
leave Luzern out. I actually don't care much about Luzern, because
Lausanne is my city of citizenship and wouldn't like people across the
world "confusing" Lucerne Food with Lausanne, but since Lausanne joined
the confederation much later in 1536 and I used Luzern because somebody
suggested earlier to use it for a food company not even based in
Siwtzerland (a notational insult to Nestle by the way)._ 

Do you recognize how absurd this City Sub-Sub-Track is getting??????????
Frankly I think the CITY idea is getting us off-track badly. 

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez



El 2018-05-07 12:25, Alexander Schubert escribió:

> Paul, 
> I think there is already a valid solution on the table:
> A population size cut-off: A city gets only "priority" if it has more than "X" inhabitants. And ONLY all cities with identical name and more than "X" inhabitants have to provide a letter! Easy solution - and MUCH better than depriving ALL inhabitants of ALL cities of their ability to identify themselves via their city gTLD: one that is approved by the city and therefore likely an effort by the constituents of said city: and not some money-hungry "gTLD investors" which want to flood the market with THOUSANDS of uniform gTLDs as profit centers and cash cows. 
> Thanks,
> Alexander.berlin 
> FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Paul Rosenzweig
> SENT: Monday, May 07, 2018 4:47 PM
> TO: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch; annebeth.lange at norid.no; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> SUBJECT: 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 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180507/0053ccd1/attachment.html>

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