[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for requirement of letters of non-objection!

Thu May 17 05:28:18 UTC 2018

  I have heard that in Italy a city is any grouping of people that has a 
cathedral and a bishop. (Maybe someone on the list can confirm this.) I 
just visited one (Pienza) that has only 2000 people and does have a 
mayor, so some form of government. So, if it is a city and does have a 
government but is well below the population cut off, how would the 
provisions below protect Pienza (or not)?

Marita

On 5/17/2018 1:14 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
>
> Susan,
>
> Either I have not expressed myself precise enough – or I am misunderstood:
>
> In the 2012 AGB it clearly states “city name”. I think the requirement 
> to produce a letter of non-objection from the city’s government 
> implies that only city’s that HAVE any form of Government are targeted 
> by this rule. Rock doesn’t have any “Government” – it is such a small 
> village (1,200 people) that it is governed by others. There is a 
> reference to “city government” in Module 2, page 18 of 42, 2.2.1.4.2 
> in 2b – there in the reference 7 
> (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/evaluation-procedures-04jun12-en.pdf):
> */“City governments with concerns about strings that are duplicates, 
> nicknames or close renderings of a city name should not rely/*
>
> */on the evaluation process as the primary means of protecting their 
> interests in a string. Rather, a government may elect to file a/*
>
> */formal objection to an application that is opposed by the relevant 
> community, or may submit its own application for the string.”/*
>
> This language clearly implies that “city” in respect to the support 
> requirement is defined as a place that has its own “Government”.
>
>
> I am very much in agreement with you that the 2012 AGB specification 
> “city name” is a disaster. It’s not really defined and way too broad. 
> By introducing a population-size cutoff we eliminate all the smallish 
> places that nobody really would ever create a geo gTLD for anyways – 
> so brands and generic term applications have free reign! These smaller 
> places can still OBJECT to an application – example would be “Aspen”.
>
> And this is precisely one of our tasks here: to unearth language and 
> provisions of the 2012 AGB that maybe “worked” in 2012 – but likely 
> create confusion in future rounds.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander
>
> *From:*Susan Payne [mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:41 AM
> *To:* alexander at schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for 
> requirement of letters of non-objection!
>
> Well Alexander, this is a perfect example of why if you are going to 
> agree with the wide-ranging and imprecise assertions of others then it 
> would be well to be clear exactly what you are agreeing with.  You 
> actually do not agree with Christopher at all –or at least in large part.
>
> What’s called a city seems to vary greatly from country to country.  
> I’ve been to UK fishing villages that are bigger than “cities” in some 
> other countries.  The AGB just refers to a “city” but without defining 
> what that is. Not that there’s any basis at law of course for the AGB 
> city consent requirements, just for the avoidance of doubt.
>
> *Susan Payne*
>
> *Head of Legal Policy***| *Valideus Ltd***
>
> 28-30 Little Russell StreetWell
>
> London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
>
> E: susan.payne at valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>
>
> D: +44 20 7421 8255
>
> T: +44 20 7421 8299
>
> M: +44 7971 661175
>
> **
>
> *From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 
> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Alexander Schubert
> *Sent:* 16 May 2018 22:33
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Qualifying the threshold for 
> requirement of letters of non-objection!
>
> Susan,
>
> Your comment is very valuable:
>
> We HAVE to prevent that places like “rock” have veto rights over brand 
> or generic term based gTLDs! The “Rock” (in Cornwall) you mentioned is 
> a “fishing village” – and as such DOESN’T require any letter of 
> non-objection per the 2012 AGB at all! But the point itself is well taken:
>
> We need to qualify a threshold for protection – most likely by 
> quantifying the population! If we have a 10,000 (or 50,000) inhabitant 
> cut-off: the overlay between those sizeable cities and brands and or 
> generic terms is MINIMAL!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander
>
> *From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 
> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Susan Payne
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:23 AM
> *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>; lists at christopherwilkinson.eu 
> <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson 
> <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>
> Agreed Greg
>
> Christopher, you appear to be suggesting that the term “rock” since it 
> happens to be the name of at least one small town in Cornwall, 
> England, and possibly elsewhere, could not be used as a TLD by 
>  geologists, landscapers, musicians, etc etc.  On what possible legal, 
> or indeed policy, basis?  So no, you may not take that as agreed.
>
> *Susan Payne*
>
> *Head of Legal Policy***| *Valideus Ltd***
>
> 28-30 Little Russell Street
>
> London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
>
> E: susan.payne at valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>
>
> D: +44 20 7421 8255
>
> T: +44 20 7421 8299
>
> M: +44 7971 661175
>
> **
>
> *From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 
> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* 16 May 2018 21:46
> *To:* lists at christopherwilkinson.eu 
> <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson 
> <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>
> Christopher wrote:
>
> 3.  The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be abandoned. 
> (Since there has been no objection on the List to that - repeated 
> - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?)
>
> There has been significant— repeated — objection to that proposition, 
> so no, you may not take it that it is agreed in WT5.
>
> Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that.
>
> Greg
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:39 PM lists at christopherwilkinson.eu 
> <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson 
> <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>> 
> wrote:
>
>     Good afternoon:
>
>     With respect, this is the first time that I have perceived that in
>     2012, Geo-Names Review was different from the Geo-Names Panel. I
>     shall try and get my head around that!
>
>     Meanwhile, it would clearly be an advantage to have a review
>     function available for ALL Geo-related applications, up front,
>     BEFORE applicants and the mechanisms spend time and money on the
>     approval procedures.
>
>     I have already posted several comments that would significantly
>     reduce the risks and uncertainties for Geo-Names applications.
>     /Pour Memoire:/
>
>     1.  The application should be from an entity within the
>     jurisdiction of the geo-name in question, and the proposed TLD
>     Registry should be incorporated in that jurisdiction. There should
>     not be any incorporations in third country tax havens.
>
>     2.  There should be strict limits on the number of TLDs that may
>     be applied for by any one entity.
>
>     3.  The 2012 option of non-geo use of a geo-name should be
>     abandoned. (Since there has been no objection on the List to that
>     - repeated - proposition, may I take it that is agreed in WT5?)
>
>     Thus, these few, realistic, boundary conditions would considerably
>     reduce the scope and frequency of disputes during applications and
>     during implementation.
>
>     Regards
>
>     CW
>
>     PS:  Since all applications for Geo-Names should have received
>     non-objection letters from the appropriate authorities, I might
>     imagine that the scope for String Contention would be considerably
>     reduced if not eliminated.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180517/6a4aff15/attachment-0001.html>