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

Thu May 17 05:44:08 UTC 2018

Alexander,

Unfortunately, your facts are incorrect, or perhaps not expressed precisely
enough - but in some cases it is important to be precise.

1.  The 2012 AGB does not make reference to the city's government -- it
only refers to "the relevant governments or public authorities."  Rock
certainly has a "relevant government or public authority.  So Rock does not
fall out of any list of "cities" based on that criterion.

2.  It's incorrect to say that Rock "is such a small village (1,200 people)
that it is governed by others."  While the population is about right (it's
1227), Rock is governed by the Parish Council of St. Minver (Lowlands),
which has a total population of 1449, so all but 222 people in St. Minver
(Lowlands) live in Rock.  Perhaps you were thinking of Trebetherick, where
most of those remaining  222 people live.  It is Trebetherick that "is such
a small village that it is governed by others" -- the people of Rock. So,
minimizing Rock as an obscurity governed by some far larger population is
backwards.

3.  There is no "requirement" in the 2012 AGB that an applicant "produce a
letter of non-objection from the city’s government" *unless* "(a) It is
clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant
will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name; and
(b) The applied-for string is a city name as listed on official city
documents."  Otherwise, an applicant is free to proceed, whether they are
applying for .rock as a music TLD or as a geologic-interest TLD or as a
brand or even a persona (though Dwayne Johnson might prefer .therock).

All that said, I would agree that Rock is not a "city."  But, based on
what? How does one define "city"?  Black's Law Dictionary defines it like
this:

Ill England. An incorporated town or borough which is or has been the see
of a bishop. Co. Litt. 10S; 1 Bl. Comm. 114; Cowell. State v. Green, 126 N.
C. 103’2, 35 S. E. 4G2. A large town Incorporated with certain privileges.
The inhabitants of a city. The citizens. Worcester. In America. A city Is a
municipal corporation of a larger class, the distinctive feature of whose
organization Is Its government by a chief executive (usually called
“mayor”) and a legislative body, composed of representatives of the
citizens, (usually called a “council” or “board of aldermen,”) and other
officers having special functions. Wight Co. v. Wolff, 112 Ga. 169, 37 S.
E. 395.

I don't think that's much help for our purposes, though it sounds a bit
like Marita’s email.

There's this definition, from an article on WorldAtlas.com distinguishing
cities from towns
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-is-the-difference-between-a-city-and-a-town.html
:

*City*: A city is a legally defined entity with a structured system of
governance, and which has delegated powers to oversee local legislation as
well as the management of resources. Citizens of a city are responsible for
electing representatives who form the local government that provides local
services.

That's only a little more helpful  The article also tells us that "Different
countries in the world have different demographics and geographical
definitions for cities.In Sweden and Denmark, a settlement of more than 200
people forms a town, whereas Australia and Canada have set a minimum of
1,000 people to make a town. This figure varies in France and Israel who
have set a minimum of 2,000 people to make a city. In the US and Mexico, a
city should have at least 2,500 people, compared to Japan where cities must
have at least 30,000 people."  (However, from my experience, no one in the
more populous parts of the US would ever consider a settlement of 2500
people to be a city.  In more thinly settled parts of the country, this
probably makes more sense. So even these numbers are too simplistic to
really be useful.

Given the difficulty in defining what a city is, and how many places might
be "cities", the AGB struck a reasonable compromise by limiting their
gatekeeping power to potential uses in the geo-use context. I’m not
necessarily saying we should keep it as is, but it was at least a decent
attempt to accommodate competing concerns.

Greg

Greg

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Alexander Schubert <
alexander at schubert.berlin> 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
>
> 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
> <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
> *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
> <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>; lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
> Wilkinson <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> *Cc:* 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
>
> 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
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* 16 May 2018 21:46
> *To:* lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <
> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> *Cc:* 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 Wilkinson <
> 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/20180517/55f9d0c5/attachment-0001.html>