[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.
Marita
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