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

Marita Moll mmoll at ca.inter.net
Tue May 8 14:28:01 UTC 2018

Hi. I only suggested the 1M because there is already an official list -- 
and it is a pretty long list!  It is a starting point only. We would 
have to accommodate for smaller sizes, set further conditions for 
smaller cities -- a capital, a percentage of population of the country 
perhaps. To me, just getting the elephants out of the room makes the job 
more manageable.


On 5/8/2018 9:50 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
> 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.
> Thanks,
> Alexander
> *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:
>     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/20180508/5ad4e233/attachment-0001.html>

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