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

Marita Moll mmoll at ca.inter.net
Tue May 8 13:26:11 UTC 2018

Thank you. This is very pertinent.


On 5/8/2018 9:21 AM, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote:
> Hi all,
> Just for reference, here's the link to the comments of the Council 
> European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) to AGB v.3 (2009).
> http://www.ccre.org/img/uploads/piecesjointe/filename/CEMR_response_gtld_EN.pdf
> CEMR Comments - CCRE 
> <http://www.ccre.org/img/uploads/piecesjointe/filename/CEMR_response_gtld_EN.pdf>
> www.ccre.org
> REGIONS D’EUROPE CEMR Comments on ICANN’s draft version 3 of the New 
> gTLD Applicant Guidebook ...
> I'm grateful to Tommi Karttaavi of the Association of Finnish Local 
> and Regional Authorities, who actually drafted these comments, for 
> digging up this bit of institutional memory.
> Best,
> Yrjö
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> on 
> behalf of Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 8, 2018 4:07 PM
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names
> 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 
>> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>; 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:* 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 <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
> 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/20180508/4d7a9b4e/attachment-0001.html>

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