<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">This possibility of
getting letters of non-objection from smaller entities, then
turning it around for profit without any added value to another
entity exists in the real estate world in North America -- it is
called home flipping -- frowned upon but totally legal. There is
every reason to expect this scenario to play out in the gTLD
world if it is allowed. So, a clarification of these rules is
really important.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Marita</font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/28/2019 9:58 AM, Alexander
Schubert wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:008b01d55da8$a4aabf00$ee003d00$@schubert.berlin">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<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;}
/* 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.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-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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">In
the wake of the risk of small city entities providing
letters of non-objection; could we please also clarify the
geo-name string contention rules? I quote from the 2012 AGB
(page 73 of 338 in the PDF document), 2.2.1.4.4 Review
Procedure for Geographic Names:<br>
<br>
<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;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">“If
there is more than one application for a string<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;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">representing
a certain geographic name as described in<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;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">this
section, </span></i></b><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">and
the applications have requisite<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:red">government
approvals, the applications will be suspended<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:red">pending
resolution by the applicants</span></i></b><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">.
If the applicants<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;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">have
not reached a resolution by either the date of the<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;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">end
of the application round (as announced by ICANN), or<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;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">the
date on which ICANN opens a subsequent application<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;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">round,
whichever comes first, the applications will be<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;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">rejected
and applicable refunds will be available to<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;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">applicants
according to the conditions described in<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;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">section
1.5.<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:red">However</span></i></b><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">,
in the event that a contention set is composed of<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;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">multiple
applications with documentation of </span></i></b><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">support
from<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:red">the
same government or public authority</span></i></b><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">,
the applications<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;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">will
</span></i></b><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">proceed
</span></i></b><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">through
the </span></i></b><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">contention
resolution procedures</span></i></b><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><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;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">described
in Module 4 when requested by the government<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;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">or
public authority providing the documentation.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></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">So
in other words:<br>
Somebody participates in a public tender of a multi-million
people city, gets the letter of non-objection, and applies.
Some profiteer also gets a letter of non-objection for that
string – albeit from a tiny 1,000 people “city”. If I do
interpret this policy right then the applicant for the tiny
place can now lay back and demand ANY ransom he wants:
because the alternative is that BOTH applications will be
rejected AND REFUNDED? So we do invite tricksters to search
for “public tenders” of cities – then get support letters
from tiny cities – then lay back and RISK FREE wait for
extortion moneys – or get a full refund?<br>
<br>
Really? Or do I misunderstand the policy?<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"><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">
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Alexander Schubert<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, August 28, 2019 4:31 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5'
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" 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"><o:p> </o:p></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"><br>
<br>
</span><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">
<p class="MsoNormal">ling delivery altogether (e.g., for a
vacation), and so on.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a>
_______________________________________________
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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos">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.</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>