<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.gmail-m4488537535993901824msoplaintext, li.gmail-m4488537535993901824msoplaintext, div.gmail-m4488537535993901824msoplaintext
{mso-style-name:gmail-m_4488537535993901824msoplaintext;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:black;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Susan,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>You have to look at it from the perspective of the pool of cities that are big and impacting enough so that their citizens want a gTLD. And if you take that pool of cities (generally cities way over 100k people):<br><br>In almost ALL cases the only “twins” are really smallish places of way under 25k people. And come on: how can a city community of say 10k people sustain an entire gTLD? It will not. So they won’t ever apply. And as the AGB stands right now: they wouldn’t be asked anyways if the big city applies.<br><br>You find very few big cities that have another “major” city with the same name. <br><br>All I say is: It is patently unfair if someone snags up a letter of non-objection from a tiny city of 2k people – then gets to run the city name gTLD and sells to the big city: and their inhabitants have never been looped in. A GROSS violation of the application spirit.<br><br>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Alexander<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Susan Payne [mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, August 28, 2019 4:41 PM<br><b>To:</b> alexander@schubert.berlin; 'Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] City names: "non-objection from all the relevant governments or public authorities"<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Alexander, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>“There aren’t too many cases with duplicate cities.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>This is a patently false statement, already debunked multiple times in this group, including by Paul McGrady yesterday. Repeating it over and over again does not make it true. </span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Susan Payne<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Head of Legal Policy <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>Valideus <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><u><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0563C1'><o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#769E91'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Alexander Schubert<br><b>Sent:</b> 28 August 2019 14:31<br><b>To:</b> 'Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5' <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] City names: "non-objection from all the relevant governments or public authorities"<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Dear Greg,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>You wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2E75B6'>“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"? “<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>EXACTLY! That’s why I am trying to find out whether the geo-panel applied the 2012 AGB correctly – and what ramifications the way they apply the AGB has in the next round!<br><br>The AGB clearly speaks about “STRING” – not “geo-entity” or “application”. A “string” is just a number of characters – it does NOT create any connotation or affiliation with an applicant, it’s “intentions” or a SPECIFIC geo-entity! So I would say the geo-panel did wrong. Here the wording again:<br><br>The 2012 AGB 2.2.1.4.2 §4 (PDF page 69) states:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2E75B6'>“In the event that there is </span></i></b><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red'>more than one relevant government or public authority for the applied-for gTLD string</span></i></b><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2E75B6'>, <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2E75B6'> the applicant must provide documentation of support or non-objection from all the relevant governments or public authorities.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>What I hear here is that folks assume (and the geo-panel acted accordingly) that “string” would be associated with a specific geo-entity (or “entities”). If we want THAT to be the case then we would need to replace “string” with “application” or “geo-entity”. Maybe others have an even better term. <br><br>There are several city governments that are “relevant” for the “string” MIAMI – e.g. City of Miami in Florida, and Miami in Oklahoma (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami,_Oklahoma). <br><br>So if you want that the geo-panel will only require a letter of support from the geo-entity that has been explicitly targeted via statements made in the respective application: SAY SO! <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>But if we change 2.2.1.4.2 §4 and reduce the letter of non-objection requirement to targeted geo-entity authorities we need to introduce a rule that protects the bigger populations of bigger cities that bear the identical name! Otherwise why participating in the public tender for “Oakland” (California) – when an applicant can simply go and offer a small revenue share to the city of Oakland in Iowa (1,500 people)?<br><br>There aren’t too many cases with duplicate cities. Applicants will generally apply for BIG cities – as only big cities will create enough registrations to sustain a gTLD. In those cases IF there are duplicate cities – these are USUALLY tiny! Exceptions exist of course – but in almost all cases that I researched (and “Berlin” or “Miami” are good examples) the “other cities” are all TINY! Nobody in a 10,000 people nest would ever apply for “their gTLD” (and yes: “Aspen” would be an exception, but there are ALWAYS exceptions). So the occasion where somebody wanted to apply for a specific city – but there would be a MUCH larger city with the same name: That would be VERY SELDOM! Usually it is ALWAYS the other way around.<br><br>Hence to avoid the “bait and switch” scenario (someone get’s the support letter from a small city; then markets to the big city) why not simply requiring that IF there was a bigger city – a letter of non-objection from THAT city would be required as well! We could build in a factor “X”, e.g.: Blue is the original language, and red the addition, change!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2E75B6'>“In the event that there is more than one relevant government or public authority for the </span></i></b><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red'>geo-entity targeted by the gTLD application</span></i></b><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2E75B6'>, <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2E75B6'> the applicant must provide documentation of support or non-objection from all the relevant governments or public authorities.<br> </span></i></b><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red'>This includes governments or public authorities of other identical name geo-entities with a population exceeding the targeted geo-entity (by factor X)”</span></i></b><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2E75B6'><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><br>The addition “by factor X” could be left away if factor X is 1! Otherwise I think factor 5 would make sense. In reality you will NOT find any city where a gTLD is of any substantial benefit for the citizens – and there is ANOTHER identical name city with 500% population. In the Toledo example: I am very hard pressed that ANYBODY would ever try to apply for Toledo having in mind the city in Spain. But IF SO – the U.S. based Toledo is only 2.9 times bigger! So the U.S. Toledo would have to object – but no letter of support is needed (and note: the current AGB wouldn’t protect them either!)! But the suggested policy change would prevent cases where applicants go to the SMALLISH twin cities (Miami, Oakland, most huge cities of a smallish twin somewhere) to circumvent acquiring letters of non-objection from the big city! <br><br>Does this make sense? If we do NOT implement this (or similar) language, then applicants for non-capital cities will flock to get letters of non-objection from “small-city”! <br><br>Thanks,<br><br>Alexander<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Greg Shatan [<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, August 28, 2019 8:41 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">alexander@schubert.berlin</a><br><b>Cc:</b> Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] City names: "non-objection from all the relevant governments or public authorities"<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>To answer your question, Alexander:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>First, under the 2012 AGB, if an applicant applies for a string that matches a city name, but the applicant <u>does not declare</u> 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))</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Second, if an an applicant applies for a string that matches a city name, and the applicant <u>does declare</u> 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."</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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"? </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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 <i>responsibilities</i> and <i>obligations.</i> The fact that even a geoTLD booster postulates easy abuse is a strong indicator that we have failed in that task.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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) </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Oh, and for anyone who thinks Oakland, California is "really rich" -- I recommend the movie "Fruitvale Station" (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitvale_Station">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitvale_Station</a>; <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/movies/fruitvale-station-is-based-on-the-story-of-oscar-grant-iii.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/movies/fruitvale-station-is-based-on-the-story-of-oscar-grant-iii.html</a>) and articles such as <span style='color:#0C5DA9'>United Nations Expert Describes Oakland and California's Homeless Crisis as 'Cruel' </span><a href="https://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2018/01/21/united-nations-expert-describes-oakland-and-californias-homeless-crisis-as-cruel">https://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2018/01/21/united-nations-expert-describes-oakland-and-californias-homeless-crisis-as-cruel</a>, or <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Homeless-camps-becoming-entrenched-in-Oakland-11240395.php">https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Homeless-camps-becoming-entrenched-in-Oakland-11240395.php</a>, <a href="https://oaklandnorth.net/2018/12/11/oaklands-air-quality-problem-can-first-of-its-kind-legislation-solve-it/">https://oaklandnorth.net/2018/12/11/oaklands-air-quality-problem-can-first-of-its-kind-legislation-solve-it/</a>, <a href="http://www.ktvu.com/news/-it-s-a-crisis-neighbors-say-homelessness-and-fires-are-common-occurrences-in-oakland">http://www.ktvu.com/news/-it-s-a-crisis-neighbors-say-homelessness-and-fires-are-common-occurrences-in-oakland</a>, 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"...).</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Best regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Greg</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:30 PM Alexander Schubert <<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Hi Steve,<br><br>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).<br><br>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?<br><br>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?<br><br>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”.<br><br>So this is a perfect way to legally avoid public tenders of cities. <br><br>Thanks,<br><br>Alexander<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b>From:</b> Steve Chan [mailto:<a href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org" target="_blank">steve.chan@icann.org</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, August 28, 2019 3:05 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>; <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] City names: "non-objection from all the relevant governments or public authorities"<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Dear Alexander, all,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Hopefully this context, as I at least recall, is helpful to the discussion.<br><br>Best,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Steve<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='color:black'>From: </span></b><span style='color:black'>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>><br><b>Reply-To: </b>"<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>" <<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>><br><b>Date: </b>Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 4:17 PM<br><b>To: </b>"<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] City names: "non-objection from all the relevant governments or public authorities"</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=gmail-m4488537535993901824msoplaintext>I asked a very simple question and I try again:<br><br>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.<br><br>Per the current 2012 AGB provisions and in the opinion of WT5 members:<br>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?<br><br>The 2012 AGB 2.2.1.4.2 §4 (PDF page 69) states:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=gmail-m4488537535993901824msoplaintext style='margin-left:36.0pt'>“In the event that there is more than one relevant government or public authority for the applied-for gTLD string, <o:p></o:p></p><p class=gmail-m4488537535993901824msoplaintext style='margin-left:36.0pt'> the applicant must provide documentation of support or non-objection from all the relevant governments or public authorities.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><br>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Alexander<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b>From:</b> McGrady, Paul D. [<a href="mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com" target="_blank">mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:59 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>; <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] City names: "non-objection from all the relevant governments or public authorities"<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Thanks Alexander. The answer is neither if the string is .oakland. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>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 “</span>An application for a <span style='color:black;background:yellow'>city name</span>, 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. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Hope this helps. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Best,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Paul</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b>From:</b> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Alexander Schubert<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, August 27, 2019 5:45 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] City names: "non-objection from all the relevant governments or public authorities"<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Paul,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=gmail-m4488537535993901824msoplaintext>Policy is policy. I am not asking what is practical – I am asking what the current wording means in praxis:<br><br>The 2012 AGB 2.2.1.4.2 §4 (PDF page 69) states:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=gmail-m4488537535993901824msoplaintext style='margin-left:36.0pt'>“In the event that there is more than one relevant government or public authority for the applied-for gTLD string, <o:p></o:p></p><p class=gmail-m4488537535993901824msoplaintext style='margin-left:36.0pt'> the applicant must provide documentation of support or non-objection from all the relevant governments or public authorities.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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).<br><br>It’s a yes or no answer.<br><br>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Alexander<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b>From:</b> McGrady, Paul D. [<a href="mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com" target="_blank">mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:29 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>; <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] City names: "non-objection from all the relevant governments or public authorities"<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Thanks Alexander.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Best,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Paul</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b>From:</b> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Alexander Schubert<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, August 27, 2019 5:11 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] City names: "non-objection from all the relevant governments or public authorities"<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=gmail-m4488537535993901824msoplaintext>Dear Paul,<br><br>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.<br><br>The 2012 AGB 2.2.1.4.2 §4 (PDF page 69) states:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=gmail-m4488537535993901824msoplaintext style='margin-left:36.0pt'>“In the event that there is more than one relevant government or public authority for the applied-for gTLD string, <o:p></o:p></p><p class=gmail-m4488537535993901824msoplaintext style='margin-left:36.0pt'> the applicant must provide documentation of support or non-objection from all the relevant governments or public authorities.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'>So no: ICANN should NOT decide which city is the best or largest.<br><br>My question remains: Is my interpretation of the 2012 AGB 2.2.1.4.2 §4 shared by others?<br><br>Thanks,<br><br>Alexander<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b>From:</b> McGrady, Paul D. [<a href="mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com" target="_blank">mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, August 28, 2019 12:54 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>; <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] City names: "non-objection from all the relevant governments or public authorities"<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Hi Alexander,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>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...).</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Best,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Paul</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#816D5C'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b>From:</b> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Alexander Schubert<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, August 27, 2019 4:12 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] City names: "non-objection from all the relevant governments or public authorities"<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=gmail-m4488537535993901824msoplaintext>I have brought this up before but got no response so far: <o:p></o:p></p><p class=gmail-m4488537535993901824msoplaintext> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=gmail-m4488537535993901824msoplaintext>Question: <b>Would an applicant for “Oakland” need just ONE or SEVERAL letters of non-objection (assuming he is only mentioning “Oakland , Iowa” in his application).</b><br><br>The 2012 AGB 2.2.1.4.2 §4 (PDF page 69) states:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=gmail-m4488537535993901824msoplaintext style='margin-left:36.0pt'>“In the event that there is more than one relevant government or public authority for the applied-for gTLD string, <o:p></o:p></p><p class=gmail-m4488537535993901824msoplaintext style='margin-left:36.0pt'> the applicant must provide documentation of support or non-objection from all the relevant governments or public authorities.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=gmail-m4488537535993901824msoplaintext> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=gmail-m4488537535993901824msoplaintext>It refers to “STRING” and not “specific geo entity”. I am interpreting it this way:<br>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).<br><br>Reason I am bringing this up:<br>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!<br><br>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=gmail-m4488537535993901824msoplaintext> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=gmail-m4488537535993901824msoplaintext>Alexander<o:p></o:p></p><p class=gmail-m4488537535993901824msoplaintext> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=gmail-m4488537535993901824msoplaintext style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________<br>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span lang=EN-GB><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see <a href="https://comlaude.com" target="_blank">www.comlaude.com</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>