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

Marita Moll mmoll at ca.inter.net
Sun May 20 06:09:39 UTC 2018


We also need to factor in the point that the size of cities in not 
static. There are periods, like now, when populations are on the move -- 
for many different reasons. A tiered system for dealing with cities of 
various sizes still makes sense to me.

Marita


On 5/18/2018 6:27 AM, Liz Williams wrote:
> Hello Alexander
>
> Your assertion about “nobody is going to apply for .pienza anyways — 
> too small” is precisely the kind of subjective judgment we must not 
> make in this policy development process.  Any applicant that meets the 
> criteria in the application process should be able to apply and be 
> evaluated fairly and objectively.
>
> And the second problem is with your argument about “sizeable” cities. 
> It is flawed to suggest that we can somehow have a cut off on size for 
> a geographic entity especially when geographic entities may not just 
> be cities.  Should we limit the length of rivers; the height of 
> mountains; the areas of agricultural production for cheese?  We are 
> not only discussing top level domains that may reflect city entities 
> and we need to think carefully about what we do about other geographic 
> terms, if any.
>
> 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 7:16 pm, Alexander Schubert 
>> <alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>> wrote:
>>
>> Marita,
>> This is part of the trade-off:
>>
>> Only applications for strings identical to SIZEABLE cities have to 
>> produce Government support – in exchange the “non-geo use” clause is 
>> eliminated!
>>
>> Obviously if somebody wanted to apply for .pienza to enable that 
>> 2,000 people community to identify themselves on the Internet: go for 
>> it. But why having extra “protections” for such a small geo-entity? 
>> Nobody is going to apply for .pienza anyways – too small.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Alexander
>> *From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 
>> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org]*On Behalf Of*Marita Moll
>> *Sent:*Thursday, May 17, 2018 8:28 AM
>> *To:*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!
>>
>>  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 
>>> <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 PMlists 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180520/1ed980a7/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list