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

Alexander Schubert alexander at schubert.berlin
Tue May 8 13:50:07 UTC 2018

Hi Marita,


Obviously (if we go the route of a cut-off size) we would have to get suggestions for the amount of inhabitants. A MILLION people city (even if measured by the metropolitan area) is in my mind WAY too big. This would be a quite short list – and leaves too many out in the rain. Living in the Baltics: a Million people is half Latvia or almost entire Estonia. No Baltic city would be protected – and I can rattle off at least 5 in Latvia alone that would not be happy about it. Or look at Switzerland: I am pretty sure that they will go for a NUMBER of city gTLDs over time – yet NONE of their cities has a million people! Not even NEAR. 

I see no harm to set the cut-off size to an amount between 10k and 50k people. It is very unlikely that too many “brands” or “generic string” applications would be affected (they can still apply ; just need the letter) – and while weeding out the masses of smallish places it still provides ample protections to places with sizeable population. At 50k or below obviously we would talk about the “proper city” size – not the metropolitan area.








From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marita Moll
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 4:08 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:



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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180508/4cfbb58d/attachment.html>

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