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

Steve Chan steve.chan at icann.org
Wed Aug 28 00:05:07 UTC 2019


Dear Alexander, all,

 

Based on my understanding of how the Geographic Names Panel carried out the requirements of the Applicant Guidebook, in respect of the letter of support/non-objection, the panel’s determination of the relevant government or public authorities was based on the contents of the applicant’s application, primarily question 18 (e.g., mission/purpose of the TLD). In other words, the relevant government or public authorities would be determined by whether say, the mission/purpose was to target just a single city or all cities in the world with that same name.

 

That said, in section 2.2.1.4.2, it states, “In the event of any doubt, it is in the applicant’s interest to consult with relevant governments and public authorities and enlist their support or non-objection prior to submission of the application, in order to preclude possible objections and pre-address any ambiguities concerning the string and applicable requirements.

 

In other words, there may be a difference between what is strictly required per the AGB and what may be in the applicant’s best interest to address possible opposition.

 

Hopefully this context, as I at least recall, is helpful to the discussion.

Best,

Steve

 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: "alexander at schubert.berlin" <alexander at schubert.berlin>
Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 4:17 PM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.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"

 

I asked a very simple question and I try again:

An applicant applies for a city name. There are two cities with the exact match – one is very small (e.g. 1,000 people)  but designated as “city” – and one is globally known and has a million people population.

Per the current 2012 AGB provisions and in the opinion of WT5 members:
Could an applicant claim to target the small city – get a letter of non-objection, then start selling domain names to the world? Or would they need a letter of non-objection from the big city as well?

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.”


Thanks,

 

Alexander

 

 

From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:59 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"

 

Thanks Alexander.  The answer is neither if the string is .oakland.  

 

Both cities, I believe, are named The City of Oakland.  So, if someone applied for the .thecityofoakland string, there may be a need, under the AGB, to collect letters from these U.S. municipalities that, under the First Amendment, have zero ability to preclude the applicant’s speech in applying for the string and using it however they wish (so long as they aren’t impersonating the city – unless it is for satire or political commentary, of course, then they can knock themselves out).  However, Oakland is not the official name of either city, so a .Oakland requires no government approvals.  2.2.1.4.2, 2.  States “An application for a city name, where the applicant declares that it intends to use the gTLD for purposes associated with the city name.”  (I added the yellow)  2.2.1.4.2, 2. doesn’t make any reference at all to elements which form city names, or else no one could apply for .the, .city or .of.  

 

Hope this helps.  

 

Best,

Paul

 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 5:45 PM
To: 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"

 

Paul,

 

Policy is policy. I am not asking what is practical – I am asking what the current wording means in praxis:

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.”

 

Does this policy element require a letter of non-objection from ALL cities with the same name? Or can you apply for Oakland, Iowa (1500 people) – then happily sell it to anybody who wants .oakland domains (e.g. people in California, where the real BIG Oakland is located).

It’s a yes or no answer.

Thanks,

 

Alexander

 

 

 

From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:29 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"

 

Thanks Alexander.

 

There are 88 different cities and towns in the US alone that share the name Washington.  Springfield has 41 different locations.  Franklin has 35.  Greenville has 30.  Bristol, 29.  Clinton, 29.  Salem has 26.  Madison has a lowly 24.  Georgetown has 23.  Forgot Fairview, it has 27.  And that is the tip of the proverbial iceberg.  Both the path of running around trying to get letters from dozens of cities or the path of ICANN picking winners and losers are unworkable in the extreme.  I understand your reasons for wanting this, but it just isn’t practical.  If one of these cities has a right in law to prohibit a gTLD registry operator from adopting a corresponding string, let them file an ICANN objection.  They also could sue.  Sending an applicant for .franklin on a wild goose chase simply doesn’t make any sense.

 

Best,

Paul

 

 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 5:11 PM
To: 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"

 

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> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 4:12 PM
To: 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/e1110569/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4600 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20190828/e1110569/smime-0001.p7s>


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