[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
mmoll at ca.inter.net
Tue May 8 13:07:31 UTC 2018
Just bringing us back to this possible solution -- we don't have to
reinvent the wheel. We could set the size of a city at 1 million or more
residents within the metropolitan area as identified by the U.N. -- i.e.
I think anything this large has some inherent rights that a shoe company
(or any other commercial venture) would not have. Cities satisfying this
condition would be on a priority list. This would cover a large swath of
the problems re city gTLDs. For the rest, I agree with Alexander's
On 5/7/2018 2:25 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
> 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.
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul
> *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 Rosenzweig
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
> *From:* 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>>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 7, 2018 9:40 AM
> *To:* paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>;
> annebeth.lange at norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange at norid.no>;
> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto: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
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5