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

Tue May 8 14:58:04 UTC 2018

Dear Marita, dear Alexander,

I appreciate that we are going for simple solutions, but not at any price.
In the example I made the other day, the right of the geoname prevailing over international brands, in Italian jurisprudence concerned Capri.
That is a small island in the South of Italy with 8.000 inhabitants.
Could be that there are other cities with the same name in other parts of the world, founded by immigrants, under the same name, with more inhabitants. But when it comes to Capri, usually, all over the world, you think to that small island in the middle of the sea...

World is complex and we need to find solutions that could flexible and adapted to different realities.
Luckily the founder of the small village in the British colonies in America added "New", in front of "York", if not today we shall have to find a criteria between "York" in the UK and York in the US....

Giacomo

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marita Moll
Sent: mardi 8 mai 2018 15:08
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

________________________________

**************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway
**************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway
**************************************************