[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] City names: "non-objection from all the relevant governments or public authorities"

Alexander Schubert alexander at schubert.berlin
Tue Aug 27 22:11:29 UTC 2019


Dear Paul,

that’s why ICANN is explicitly requesting letters of non-objection from ALL Toledo cities (at least in my mind)! There aren’t THAT many cases where a city name is shared by several cities – but those who do: get a letter of ALL cities and you are fine.

The 2012 AGB 2.2.1.4.2  §4 (PDF page 69) states:

“In the event that there is more than one relevant government or public authority for the applied-for gTLD string, 

   the applicant must provide documentation of support or non-objection from all the relevant governments or public authorities.”

 

So no: ICANN should NOT decide which city is the best or largest.

My question remains: Is my interpretation of the 2012 AGB 2.2.1.4.2  §4 shared by others?

Thanks,

Alexander



 

 

From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 12:54 AM
To: alexander at schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] City names: "non-objection from all the relevant governments or public authorities"

 

Hi Alexander,

 

Your email underscores a very important problem with seeking permission from cities in the first place.  Toledo, Spain may be tiny compared to Toledo, Ohio, but it is ancient and lovely and let’s just say its larger sister is not so much.  Why in the world would we want ICANN to be in the business of trying to decide which Toledo is the “most Toledo-ish Toledo” and how could ICANN possibly do that for every city grouping that shares a name (Cleveland, Ohio, Cleveland, Tennessee, Cleveland, Queensland, Australia, Cleveland, Georgia (the State, not the country), Cleveland, Texas, etc. etc. etc.) all in advance of the publication of the next AGB in order to provide predictability to applicants?  ICANN shouldn’t be in that business and they won’t be able to accomplish the necessary even if they wanted to.  Even if they just went by way of population (might makes right?) they would be tied up in reconsideration requests and IRPs such that the next round will open in 20 years.

 

This is exactly why extending special treatment for non-capital cities is a really bad idea (it’s also a bad idea for capital cities, but that is the compromise already baked in the AGB from the last round, so...).

 

Best,

Paul

 

 

 

 

This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> > On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 4:12 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> 
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] City names: "non-objection from all the relevant governments or public authorities"

 

I have brought this up before but got no response so far: 

 

Question:  Would an applicant for “Oakland” need just ONE or SEVERAL letters of non-objection (assuming he is only mentioning “Oakland , Iowa” in his application).

The 2012 AGB 2.2.1.4.2  §4 (PDF page 69) states:

“In the event that there is more than one relevant government or public authority for the applied-for gTLD string, 

   the applicant must provide documentation of support or non-objection from all the relevant governments or public authorities.”

 

It refers to “STRING” and not “specific geo entity”. I am interpreting it this way:
If somebody wanted to apply for “.oakland” and would explicitly recite that they target the city community of Oakland in Iowa (1,500 people) then that applicant would obviously need a letter of non-objection from Oakland in Iowa. But as AGB 2.2.1.4.2  §4 states “must provide documentation of support or non-objection from all the relevant governments or public authorities” I would say that the applicant needs also letters of non-objection from OTHER cities “Oakland” – e.g. “Oakland in California” (a real big city – really rich, too).

Reason I am bringing this up:
It can’t be that profiteers acquire a letter of non-objection from some “tiny place” that calls itself “city” – when in reality of course hopes that the residents of the BIG CITY will register domains!

Thanks,

 

Alexander

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20190828/afd2f52e/attachment.html>


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