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

Thu May 17 06:01:08 UTC 2018

So … Rock is about five minutes from my home.  It is not a big place…but it is a nice ferry ride from Padstow.

What this exchange illustrates is the silliness of trying to have a size-based definition of what is a “city” or not.  And for those people who live in Gibraltar (a very big and contested rock); and others who claim ownership of the traditional lands of another rock (Ayers Rock or Uluru) or any other place that is or could be called a rock gets us into the realm of impracticality.

However, if the residents of Rock in Cornwall, where there is a huge tourism industry (only in the summer!), great surfing (as long as you don’t compare it to Australia) and nice fish restaurants want to apply for the .rock TLD then we shouldn’t stop them.  Nor should we stop those geologists who like to talk about .rock geological formations.  Or, just for fun, those rock music fans who are not satisfied with .music...

What is necessary is to work out policy principles that enable application evaluators to make clear decisions about whether competing applications (if that were ever the case) to decide on what applicant is best placed to run a TLD.

Liz

….
Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs
.au Domain Administration Ltd
M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757
E: liz.williams at auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au>

Important Notice
This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

On 17 May 2018, at 3:44 pm, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:

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<http://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<mailto: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<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:41 AM
To: alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto: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<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<mailto: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/20180517/6db78b63/attachment-0001.html>