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

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. 
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/urbanization/the_worlds_cities_in_2016_data_booklet.pdf 

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 
points below.

Marita Moll

On 5/7/2018 2:25 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
>
> 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 
> <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
>
> 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/20180508/3de5db0b/attachment.html>