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

Tue Aug 27 22:42:06 UTC 2019

+1 to both Paul’s and Robin’s comments.

After watching this thread since the start, my views haven’t changed, stated near the bottom of this thread link…

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/2018-June/000863.html 

Today, I did a quick lookup of trademarks in the French database and observed over 15,000 trademarks that contain the term “paris”.

gTLDs are just one product in a world of products that reference geographies.  Control of a new gTLD does not mean control of a city or regional name.

End users can take or leave them and even though there are passionate government advocates here, I don’t see that passion coming from the vast majority of cities and regions around the world.  We have given them as much consideration as is possible and appropriate in this process. 

I do believe there should be consideration for cities and regions around the world, but not one that encompasses every possible one in every possible language nor one that gives over-undue precedence or priority to governments.  That seems to be asking too much of this process.

Sincerely,

Joe Alagna

P.S. Please note: This opinion is my own and may or may not be representative of my employer. Once again, I acknowledge the formidable & important work being done here – I have mostly only been able to observe.  Thank you to you all.

From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 3:22 PM
To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>; 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"

+1 Robin.  There is no Standing Office of gTLD Approvals in any city anywhere in the world of which I am aware.  

From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org> > 
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 5:06 PM
To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com> >; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto: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"

I agree with Paul and would add concern for the additional workload required for local governments should such a policy be instituted.  Oakland, California (and the dozen+ other Oaklands) are already busy with important work - of their own choosing.  ICANN should not now expect all of these local govts to have to shift resources away from serving their community as they see fit - and over to participation in ICANN processes and developing committees for drafting letters to ICANN over TLDs.  We would be placing an enormous and unnecessary burden on local communities to require them to produce non-objection letters in matters that do not interest them in the first place.  Let’s not get too heavy-handed with the regulations.

Thanks,

Robin

On Aug 27, 2019, at 2:53 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com> > wrote:

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 < <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 4:12 PM
To:  <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> 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

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20190827/030d478d/attachment-0001.html>