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

[Greg Shatan]

To answer your question, Alexander:

First, under the 2012 AGB, if an applicant applies for a string that
matches a city name, but the applicant *does not declare* that it intends
to use the gTLD for purposes associated with the city name, it does not
need any letters of support/non-objection. (2.2.1.4.(2))

Second, if an an applicant applies for a string that matches a city name,
and the applicant *does declare* that it intends to use the gTLD for
purposes associated with a city that has this name, then it must submit
letters from that city, and also from any other city that the Geographic
Names Panel determines is "relevant."  "Relevance" will be "based on the
inputs of the applicant, governments, and [the Geographic Names Panel's]
own research and analysis."

So the answer to your question "Does this policy element require a letter
of non-objection from ALL cities with the same name?" is "No."  This policy
element requires a letter of non-objection from additional "relevant"
cities with that name, but only where the applicant has declared its
intention to use the gTLD for purposes associated with a city with that
name.

So, the answer to your question is a question -- What additional cities, if
any, will be found "relevant" to an application for a city name intended to
be used for purposes associated with one city with that name? Kristine
suggests that Toledo, Spain would not be "relevant" to an application for
.toledo to be used for purposes associated with Toledo, Ohio.  That seems
reasonable, but you suggest a very different result -- and maybe that
result is reasonable too, because we don't have much of an idea what
"relevant" means in this context.  We do have Steve Chan's report, which
would seem to support Kristine's result.

Your responses also point a much larger apparent problem with "geoTLDs".
You say "And if an applicant would state that they target the small city:
Registrars would simply offer the gTLD – and when you have 1500 people
living in the “targeted city” – but 500,000 in the “big city”: 100% of all
applications will come from the “wrong city” and "Could an applicant claim
to target the small city – get a letter of non-objection, then start
selling domain names to the world?"  This seems to indicate that the whole
geoTLD thing is a racket (or at least, has the capacity to be one): that
any geoTLD operator can state their "intention" to use the string in
connection with a particular place in their application, and then turn
around and do whatever they want in connection with marketing that gTLD or
the sale of second level domains (and that each registrars may be able to
"do their own thing" as well).   Why would ICANN support this "land-grab"
when it's just a set-up for a "bait and switch"?

Of course, I hope this is not the case, but this does raise the question of
safeguards to ensure that any "privilege" or "preference" given to a
particular use of a string also comes with *responsibilities* and
*obligations.* The fact that even a geoTLD booster postulates easy abuse is
a strong indicator that we have failed in that task.

In closing, I would like to point out the very practical advice given in
the AGB: "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." (Page 2-18, fn. 7)

Oh, and for anyone who thinks Oakland, California is "really rich" -- I
recommend the movie "Fruitvale Station" (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitvale_Station;
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/movies/fruitvale-station-is-based-on-the-story-of-oscar-grant-iii.html)
and articles such as United Nations Expert Describes Oakland and
California's Homeless Crisis as 'Cruel'
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2018/01/21/united-nations-expert-describes-oakland-and-californias-homeless-crisis-as-cruel,
or
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Homeless-camps-becoming-entrenched-in-Oakland-11240395.php
,
https://oaklandnorth.net/2018/12/11/oaklands-air-quality-problem-can-first-of-its-kind-legislation-solve-it/
,
http://www.ktvu.com/news/-it-s-a-crisis-neighbors-say-homelessness-and-fires-are-common-occurrences-in-oakland,
etc., etc.  (Don't get me wrong; there are a lot of great things in
Oakland, and some nice neighborhoods, but no one would look around the Bay
Area and pick out Oakland as "really rich"...).

Best regards,

Greg

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:30 PM Alexander Schubert
<alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:

> Hi Steve,
>
> THANKS! So an applicant could apply for “.oakland” – stating they target
> “Oakland, Iowa”; providing a letter of non-objection from Oakland, Iowa but
> NOT ever contacting the big Oakland (California).
>
> So you say in that scenario the community of Oakland in California could
> object the application? What’s the objection procedure (AGB Paragraph) and
> who would be eligible? Only the city Government – or also entities like the
> Chamber of Commerce?
>
> The reason why I am asking: We hear over and over again – that in the
> worst case there is always the tool of “objection”. But can you object an
> application that has Government approval?
>
> And if an applicant would state that they target the small city:
> Registrars would simply offer the gTLD – and when you have 1500 people
> living in the “targeted city” – but 500,000 in the “big city”: 100% of all
> applications will come from the “wrong city”.
>
> So this is a perfect way to legally avoid public tenders of cities.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan at icann.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 28, 2019 3:05 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"
>
>
>
> 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
> <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
> <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
> <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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> 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) and
> the website Terms of Service (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/20190828/fd117e20/attachment-0001.html>