On May 4, 2018, at 12:48 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

Dear Paul
That is probably a strange way of seeing things. The brand holder would have only an interest worth protecting if the string is used by someone else in commerce, in the same category of product or service, and consumer confusion is at stake.
The city under Swiss law has a right to sue against the use of its name, without such strings attached, i.e. it is a more ample right.
But again, what is key here is that the applicant needs to talk to the city with that very name and get at least its non-objection. Everything else is an invitation for protracted conflicts as we have seen in some cases NOT subject to this instrument...
best
Jorge



________________________________

Von: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
Datum: 4. Mai 2018 um 18:04:30 MESZ
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, alexander@schubert.berlin<alexander@schubert.berlin>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
Betreff: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Yes, I understand the difference.  But what gives one priority over the
other.  You are, in effect, arguing that the civil code of Switzerland
should take precedence in our judgment to the trademark code of Great
Britain, say.    Indeed, to my mind the narrower more focused right should
generally be thought of as taking precedence since it is less limiting of
others.

Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739

-----Original Message-----
From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>
Sent: Friday, May
To: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; gregshatanipc@gmail.com;
alexander@schubert.berlin
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Dear Paul
The difference, being simple, is that a trademark gives you a limited
protection regarding a term for certain products and services, when there
might be a confusion for consumers (Nick from Nominet explained it much
better).
The right under the civil code on the name of a city is general in its
scope, not limited to commercial issues, not limited to specific products
and services and not focused on consumer protection.
Best
Jorge


________________________________

Von: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
Datum: 4. Mai 2018 um 17:27:55 MESZ
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>,
gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, alexander@schubert.berlin
<alexander@schubert.berlin>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
Betreff: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Why is it qualitatively different?  And if it is qualitatively different
what body of law gives one type of right priority over another?

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739

-----Original Message-----
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf
Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch
Sent: Friday, May 4, 2018 10:54 AM
To: gregshatanipc@gmail.com; alexander@schubert.berlin
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Dear Greg
Luzern has a right on the name as such under civil right, which is
qualitatively different.
Best
Jorge



________________________________

Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
Datum: 4. Mai 2018 um 16:44:19 MESZ
An: alexander@schubert.berlin <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Alexander,

You seem to be confusing how patents work and how trademarks work.  Patents
can accurately be characterized as a “right to exclude.”  Trademarks cannot.
The company has positive rights in LUCERNE.

When enforcing that trademark, the owners of LUCERNE can seek to stop use or
registration of a mark that raises a “likelihood of confusion” — basically,
the same or similar mark for the same or related goods and services, and for
goods and services in the “natural zone of expansion.”  I’m not saying they
have the right to stop EVERYBODY nor should they, but then again, neither
should Luzern.

Greg

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 10:31 AM Alexander Schubert
<alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Greg,

Lucerne Foods, Inc. (an American legal entity) might have acquired trade
mark rights in the United States of America – but NOT for “LUCERNE”! The
trade mark protection prevents the commercial usage of the trade-marked
string “lucerne” - FOR A VERY NARROW SELECTION OF SERVICES AND GOODS. It’s
rather the services and goods that you protect – FOR a certain string. The
string itself is free to use by anybody for everything (minus the few goods
and services trade-marked).

And nobody says that “governments think the rights of governments come
first” – it is THE PEOPLE who come first of course – and Governments are
merely representing them.

Alexander





From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
[mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bou
nces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 9:08 AM
To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>

Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Of course Lucerne Foods has a right on Lucerne.  More precisely, they have
legitimate interests in and a legal right to Lucerne.  And they have
trademark registrations for LUCERNE.  As with any registration they specify
goods and services. That doesn’t make their rights less valid.

Can you clarify if you believe that the hypothetical applicant for .sandwich
should be required to get letters of support or nonobjective from Sandwich,
Mass and Sandwich, England? Thank you.

Greg

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 1:43 AM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Greg

Thanks for your reply. “Lucerne Foods” has no right on “Lucerne” – it most
probably just has a trademark for “lucerne foods” in very specific
categories of products and services (food related I guess).

In Switzerland (“Lucerne” as such) would in fact be barred from registration
as a business name (as I have said). And the city of Lucerne has a right on
its name pursuant 29 Civil Code, so it has clearly a good legal ground to
challenge the delegation of the unique resource “.lucerne”.

But beyond the Swiss legal system, the delegation of the unique resource
which is a city’s name will give rise to political sensitivities, whatever
the “intended use”. You need that city government on board. Otherwise you
will have a political problem – which is quite natural as city governments
have responsibilities, and the name of their city is their main identifier.

Best

Jorge

Von: Greg Shatan
[mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>]
Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Mai 2018 07:36
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>

Cc: Liz Williams
<liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>>; Icann Gnso
Newgtld Wg Wt5
<gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Uniqueness does not convey primacy upon governments.

TLDs may be unique, but that does not mean that governments should get a
"Trump Card" to block any use of a string with (among other things) a
geographic meaning.  I can understand why governments think the rights of
governments come first, but that's not going to get us very far.

"Use" is absolutely important -- it goes to whether a legitimate right is
being exercised or infringed.

If Lucerne Foods
(<http://>www.lucernefoods.com<http://www.lucernefoods.com<http://www.lucernefoods.co
m<http://www.lucernefoods.com>>), one of
the world's largest food producers, wants to apply for .lucerne, they should
have the right to do so, without interference from Luzern.  (I assume they
have lucernefoods.com<http://lucernefoods.com> because
www.lucerne.com<http://www.lucerne.com> was already taken.)

Best regards,

Greg

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 1:23 AM,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Greg and all,

„Sandwich“ may be a nice example, but fact is that, as I explained, the
“use” is not really important, as we only have one string with that city
name – TLDs are unique.

Therefore, whatever the intended use (a can of worms on its own btw), the
unique TLD with the “city name” would be delegated. Think on “.shanghai”
delegated for a “non geo-use”. Who would say that would have no
implications, that would not arise no political sensitivities?

But getting back to my country, if “.luzern” were to be applied for,
intending a “non-geo use”, I would very well understand that this would
bring about not only political issues but also legal challenges in our
country (based on Art. 29 civil code).

All this is avoided if you acknowledge the facts (TLDs are unique and
political sensitivities are there) and try to put everyone at the table. The
non-objection letter does that. It may be improved, based on factual issues
detected in the 2012 round – btw: we should of course consult all parties in
those issues and get first-hand information from the applicants and public
authorities involved – just basing our analysis on hearsay, opinions or
third-party reports would not be appropriate (Greg, you will remember that
in the “jurisdiction Subgroup” of the CCWG Accountability we followed the
same path of only looking at first hand evidence…).

Best regards

Jorge

Von: Greg Shatan
[mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>]
Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Mai 2018 07:07
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<http://kom.admin.ch>>
Cc: Liz Williams
<liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>>; Icann Gnso
Newgtld Wg Wt5
<gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>

Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

The burden of non-objection is "fairly" put on the applicant (if at all)
only if the intended use of the gTLD is as a "geo TLD."  If the applied-for
string is going to be used for other purposes, there should be no
opportunity for a non-applicant to block an application.  (If the "place" is
another applicant, that's an entirely different situation that I am not
covering in this email.)

Consider an application for .sandwich as a gTLD geared toward domains for
sandwich restaurants, sandwich recipe sites, sandwich fans, sandwich
historians, sellers of sandwich ingredients (meats, cheeses, breads,
condiments, etc.) or sandwich implements (panini presses, toaster ovens,
etc.).  Sandwich, England and Sandwich, Mass. (and the Earl of Sandwich)
should have no say in the matter.

This is analogous to the treatment of brands.  If Delta Faucets applies for
.Delta, Delta Van Lines has no basis for an objection -- because Delta
Faucets has a legitimate right.  Delta Van Lines option is to apply or not
to apply (even if it is only a "defensive application").  This is a
practical and time-tested model that we should use for strings with
geographic and other meanings, at least where the gTLDs use is not as a "geo
TLD".

Greg

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 12:56 AM,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Liz

The burden to obtain the non-objection is fairly put on the applicant, who
has, as you also say, a direct interest in avoiding objections.

The city governments of this world (we have 2000+ in tiny Switzerland),
whose name is applied to by an applicant in a widely unknown setting which
is ICANN cannot be expected to be privy to such procedures and to be
monitoring the rounds of applications. This is of course much more difficult
for developing and large countries, whose cities may realize one day that
their name was taken as a TLD in a process they did not know, because they
did not „object“.

To the larger point: you argue/assert that the non-objection letter should
not be continued. Alas you have produced no factual basis that would warrant
that, beyond one case (africa) where the problems were of an unrelated
character, another (amazon) that did NOT fall under the non objection rule,
which leaves us with one case (tata) where issues may be analyzed and
addressed without changing the system and putting the incentive structure
completely upside-down.

More broadly speaking, ICANN cannot just ignore the political sensitivities,
which are backed by different policies, laws etc. depending on the
corresponding country. You need their representatives at the table and
non-objecting if you want to avoid protracted issues. These kinds of issues
only would grow if you gerrymander those public authorities out of the game.

best regards

Jorge



________________________________

Von: Liz Williams
<liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>>
Datum: 4. Mai 2018 um 00:48:00 MESZ
An: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
<gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Hello everyone

This thread has brought out some really interesting ideas.  I may have a
simpler solution because what we are really talking about, in many cases, is
backward looking difficult history from which we need to move on.  We should
not be satisfied with a 2007 policy and a 2012 implementation if it
continues to “allow” bad policy to chase “poor” implementation.

I may have a solution though because what we are essentially talking about
also is how a interested stakeholder can express “objection” to something.
I would like to see the end of the “non-objection” process all together, for
reasons explained in other posts.  However, “objecting to an application" is
still a legitimate course of action for someone to take if they don’t want
something to happen.  Here are the steps.

1.  If you support something, say so.  This is really up to an applicant to
do the footwork to demonstrate in an application that this has taken place.
We can then think on implementation elements of what that could look like.

2.  If you don’t object to something, allow it to happen.  If you change
your mind, you must do it within agreed strict time parameters see point 3.
(Non-Objection letters will be a thing of the past).

3.  If you do object, make an appropriately framed objection whoever you
are.  Within that objection process, refer to international law, domestic
law, ISO standards and so on that are relevant to the applicant & the
application.   This takes out the endless discussion here about what should
be referred to which causes such trouble.

The applicant takes responsibility for ensuring that they submit an
application which addresses those points and avoids an objection (all
applicants are highly motivated to avoid objections).  An objector must use
those standards;  pay for making the objection and submit it within
appropriate time frames.  Evaluators then take those objections into account
in evaluation.  An objector (whoever they are) must accept that their
objection may be discarded by evaluators.

Then we can close off the endless circular differences between jurisdictions
and we focus on the real work that takes place for an applicant in an
application process.

I look forward to hearing more from colleagues because this could apply to
a) any application and b) geographic terms in particular.   Our policy
recommendation then comes around to open process, objective criteria,
assumption of compliance with law, competition and innovation.  The points
above are then implementation guidelines that improve an AGB.

Liz


….
Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs
.au Domain Administration Ltd
M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757
E:
liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.william
s@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>>
www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au><http://www.auda.org.au>

Important Notice
This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to
legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If
you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any
part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please
notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

On 4 May 2018, at 4:50 am, Mike Rodenbaugh
<mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<
mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>> wrote:

Maybe Staff can help compile any such laws and cases related to domains?  We
should deal with concrete examples, as I have given re 4 TLD applications
from the last round.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:32 AM,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorg
e.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote:
Dear Mike
There are similar laws in other countries. For Switzerland you can look it
up online quite easily (in various languages). There is case-law but I guess
the court decisions will be in German and French.
Besides, limits to register solely city names and other geographic terms as
such as trademarks or business names are also common...
On the other hand, as said before, rights on brands are limited to specific
categories of products and services...
In the end, as said, you have different interests converging on a single
string, where in our opinion the public interest is paramount.
Best
Jorge



________________________________

Von: Mike Rodenbaugh
<mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<
mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>>
Datum: 3. Mai 2018 um 19:26:08 MESZ
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorg
e.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>
Cc: Gregory S. Shatan
<gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanip
c@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>,
mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mail
to:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>
<mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mai
lto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>,
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:g
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>
<gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

I would like to see the text of such laws, and any cases that apply them to
domain names.  I guess there might be one in France too, but I haven't dug
into the particulars of the French legal proceedings re
France.com<http://France.com>.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:19 AM,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorg
e.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Ca
ncio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@
bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote:
Dear Mike
I mentioned some, eg in Switzerland cities have rights to protect their
names under the civil code (art. 29), and provisions prevent the
registration of business names and trademarks that solely consist of city
names.
best
Jorge



________________________________

Von: Mike Rodenbaugh
<mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<
mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbau
gh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>>>
Datum: 3. Mai 2018 um 19:06:27 MESZ
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorg
e.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Ca
ncio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@
bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>>
Cc: Gregory S. Shatan
<gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanip
c@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<
mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregsh
atanipc@gmail.com>>>>,
mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mail
to:mmoll@ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>
<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>
<mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mai
lto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net

<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>>,

gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:g
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:g
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gn
so-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>>
<gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:g
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>>>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Jorge, what law provides for governments to claim superior rights to
geographic (or any other) domain names?  I am not aware of any, so am eager
to be enlightened if they exist.

Thanks,
Mike

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:49 AM,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorg
e.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Ca
ncio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@
bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bak
om.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.ad
min.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.
ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<ma
ilto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>>> wrote:
Dear Mike

Thanks for your input.

In the end we have different bodies, entities etc. holding interests on one
single string. In our view (Swiss perspective), public interest provides for
clear limits to private monopolization over geographic names such as city
names – this is reflected in law.

Best regards

Jorge


Von: Mike Rodenbaugh
[mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbau
gh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@r
odenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>><mail
to:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.co
m<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenb
augh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>>>]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2018 09:49
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorg
e.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Ca
ncio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@
bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bak
om.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.ad
min.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.
ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<ma
ilto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>>>
Cc: Gregory S. Shatan
<gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanip
c@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<
mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregsh
atanipc@gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gma
il.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mail
to:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatan
ipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>>;
mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mail
to:mmoll@ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>
<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inte
r.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.i
nter.net>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll
@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>>;
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:g
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:g
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gn
so-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:g
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gn
so-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:gn
so-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gns
o-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>>>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Governments also have infinite, obvious alternatives to <.city> TLDs, such
as <.citygovernment>, <.citycouncil>, <.citytourism>, etc.  Perhaps
surprisingly, governments have managed to survive for the past 30 years even
though they have not had the legal the right to "their"
<city.com<http://city.com><http://city.com/><http://city.com<http://city.com
/>><http://city.com<http://city.com/>>> or even <city.ccTLD> second level
domain names.  They still have no such legal right at any level of the DNS.
Some governments' fantasy to own such rights is just that, fantasy.

To be sure, ICANN is not the proper body to grant governments such a right.
But unfortunately, ICANN went far too far in the last round kowtowing to
governments, and requiring the "non-objection" letter.  That led to outright
extortion by such well known geographic areas as SPA and BAR, among others,
who had nothing more that a fantasy to control TLD rights to that name, plus
ICANN's ill-advised, non-community-consensus requirement of the
non-objection letter.  As I recall (and I could be wrong and will eat my
shoe), that was an ICANN Staff implementation gift, not part of the
consensus policy passed by GNSO and the Board.  Even if it was, it was
ill-advised then, and should be eliminated for future rounds.

Country codes have been given special status in the DNS with ccTLDs and
correspondent restrictions at the second level of the New gTLDs.  That was
an original gift to national governments, extended stupidly to the second
level by ICANN in the last round, solely to appease government
obstructionists in that last round.  Subsidiary governments need to get over
this; they don't have further rights to "their" name in the DNS.  Period.

Paris, France has no greater rights to .PARIS than Paris, Texas.  Or Paris
Hilton.  Period.  But I would love to hear them fight out that issue.  ICANN
certainly should not have predetermined it in favor of France or Texas, to
the detriment of Ms. Hilton (and so many other legitimate users of the word
Paris).  All three of those parties (at least) had equal rights to that TLD,
and should have been put into a contention set to resolve it.

In substantial part, governments continue to rehash arguments made by IGOs
in the various IGO Names policy discussions.  Those IGOs get nowhere with
the broader GNSO community because they only have fantasy rights to "their"
names (in many cases) and acronyms (in almost all cases).  So they scream to
the Board and have delayed finality in those discussions for half a decade
already.  But the GNSO is never going to agree with them, and the GNSO has
primary TLD policy responsibility under the Bylaws, not the GAC.
Eventually, the Board must side with the GNSO, though they will put that off
forever if they can, as they have done with IGO Names issues.

This GNSO group ought not be considering government pressure or fantasy
rights.  If the Board wants to do so, that is their prerogative.  We need to
develop policy in the real world, where governments coexist with businesses
and other users of "their" names.  They have done so for 30 years.  I am
confident in stating that not a single government has fallen, nor even been
harmed, by the ability of absolutely anyone to register "their" name at the
second level or at the top level.  Until any such harm is shown, why are we
even discussing this?  What problem are we trying to solve, exactly?



Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:28 PM,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorg
e.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Ca
ncio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@
bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bak
om.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.ad
min.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.
ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<ma
ilto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>>> wrote:
Dear all

The fundamental flaw with such an approach is that it forgets that TLDs are
unique. There can be only one TLD with a given city name. there can be only
one delegation of such a string.

City governments have political, social, historical, economic and legal
responsibilities over their cities, and have (at least in Switzerland and
other countries) rights on the names of their cities. There might be several
cities with the same name, but under the 2012 AGB you had to obtain the
non-objection from all of them if that was the case.

As for brands there may be unlimited numbers of business names and
trademarks that use a given city name, usually as part of their names (e.g.
City “insurances”, City “salami”, City “whatever”…) and with figurative
elements beyond the name as such (the color, the font, symbols, etc.). For
instance in Switzerland you are not allowed to register a city name as such
as a business name – because this would mean that a private business is
monopolizing that geographic name.

Hence the crux, resolved in 2012 by the non-objection letter, was that
several interests (public interests of a wide spectrum represented by the
cities, community interests and multiple commercial interests in the form of
brands) may converge on one string, one city name, one TLD.

The non-objection letter was and is in our view a good way to get the more
specific interests backing one application to a table with those who
represent the corresponding city (and its public policy interests), in order
to try to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution…

Best regards

Jorge

Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
[mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bou
nces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-new
gtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org
<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bo
unces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-
newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.or
g><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-b
ounces@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-
newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.o
rg<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>>>] Im Auftrag von Greg
Shatan
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2018 06:27
An: Marita Moll
<mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mai
lto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net

<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>><mailto:mmoll@ca.int

er.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.
inter.net>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmol
l@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>>>
Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5
<gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:g
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:g
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:g
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gn
so-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>>>>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

We need to distinguish between two major groups of potential use cases that
arise when there is an application for a string that (among other things) is
a geographic term:

1.  The Geo Case:  The case where a new gTLD applicant want to operate the
gTLD as a "geographic" TLD (e.g., .berlin, .nyc, .africa) 2.  The Non-Geo
Case: The case where a new gTLD wants to operate the gTLD as something other
than a geographic TLD -- a .brand, a generic gTLD, a restricted gTLD (e.g.,
.tata, .spa, .amazon, .patagonia)

For the Geo Case, it may be that there are few instances where
support/non-objection letters caused problems in the 2012 round.  One
"problem" instance is .africa.  One would have to look at the universe of
cases to determine whether all the rest worked well or not.

For the Non-Geo Case, it is clear that there were multiple instances where
support/non-objection letters or similar exercises of power did cause
problems.  We can start with all four of the examples I've cited above.  I
would be curious to know if there were Non-Geo Cases that didn't have
problems.

I think we have to consider these use cases separately.  The considerations
that apply when a TLD will be operated as a geo TLD (e.g., Roma for Romans)
do not apply when the TLD will be operated for other purposes (e.g.,
.sandwich for a food-related TLD -- Sandwich, MA was incorporated in 1639
and named after Sandwich, England, which is obviously older).  Blending them
together just obscures the issues.

Greg



On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Marita Moll
<mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mai
lto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net

<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>><mailto:mmoll@ca.int

er.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.
inter.net>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmol
l@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>>> wrote:

Yes, cities can have long history in older cultures -- wars were fought and
people died over them.



In Canada, municipal governments are subdivisions of their province. While
they have autonomy on most decisions, all by-laws passed are subject to
change by the provincial government at any time. So cities exist at the
pleasure of the provincial governments.



Leaves one to wonder if the province could deny the city the right to it's
TLD.:-( This is a pretty slippery slope......


Marita

On 5/2/2018 11:17 AM, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote:

Dear all,



Cities have been founded, incorporated and given various privileges -
including their names - in the course of history by kings and emperors and
other assorted authorities, and in my non-lawyer´s mind, documents attesting
to those acts, scribbled on parchment or whatever, are the legal basis. More
important, from end-users´ point of view, is the political ownership felt by
the citizens.



For reference,  attached please find an excerpt of the founding document  of
my home city Tampere/Tammerfors in 1779, signed by king Gustaf III.



Best,



Yrjö



[cid:image001.png@01D3E2D4.C11E9F30]





________________________________
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
<gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@ic
ann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg
-wt5-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto
:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@i
cann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>>><mailto:gnso-newgtl
d-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mai
lto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces
@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtl
d-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mai
lto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>>> on behalf of Alexander
Schubert
<alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander
@schubert.berlin>>><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schube
rt.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin

<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto

:alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>>>
Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 5:16 PM
To:
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:g
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:g
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gn
so-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:g
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gn
so-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:gn
so-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gns
o-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names


Dear Greg,



You write:
       “…..but a ‘first right’ based on a geographic name is troublesome on
several levels. But one fundamental question jumps out -- what right is this
first right based on?”

If we talk about sizeable (or otherwise “important”) cities:

Nobody has a “first right” obviously. Why should anybody. But if a string is
(should be) poised to serve as identifier for a sizeable amount of people
(e.g. larger cities) – I think we do not have to search for “international
law”; it should be self-evident that such an infrastructure resource like a
city-gTLD is NOT assigned lightly to “some entity” – but that the
representatives of the city are looped in. There is morality and a “sense of
common good” OUTSIDE of established law. At least in Good Old Europe.



But I completely agree with you if we talk about “minor” geographical
entities – such as a small stream or a hill. Or a tiny dwelling somewhere in
the nowhere. Especially if there is an entity that is MUCH better known to
the public (e.g. a well-known brand  vs. a small mountain) or if it is
identical to a generic term: “.new” and the New River.

The big question is: How do we policy the line that separates the entities
that deserve “protection” from the rest? A repository? Lists of any sort?
Population size? Or maybe a panel that decides case by case (caution: Beauty
contest alarm)? But having no protections at all is not going to work. To
LOWER the already low bar is bonkers in my mind. I wish GAC would pay more
attention – there are forces trying to take away DNS infrastructure from The
People.


Thanks,



Alexander.berlin







From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
[mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bou
nces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-new
gtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org
<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bo
unces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>>] On Behalf
Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 7:42 AM
To: David Cake
<dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto
:dave@davecake.net>><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net><mail
to:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net>>>><mailto:dave@davecake.net<m
ailto:dave@davecake.net><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net>>
<mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net><mailto:dave@davecake.net
<mailto:dave@davecake.net>>>>
Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
<gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:g
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>>><mailto
:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:g
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names



I find myself generally in agreement with Liz Williams.  There are more
nuances to unpack than I have time for, but a "first right" based on a
geographic name is troublesome on several levels. But one fundamental
question jumps out -- what right is this first right based on?  Is there a
legal basis for this?  (Jorge tells us that his government would make a
decision "based on law", so it would be useful to know what law we're
talking about.)  Requiring a "letter of support or non-objection" is also
troublesome and not just for the reasons Liz mentions.  (I hope we do not
have to pore through each of the letters of support/non-objection from the
first round to highlight the problems they cause, but if we are going to,
this should be a job for the WG as a whole, not an assignment for Liz.)  I
recognize that, as Jorge say, it "works well for governments."  Well, of
course it does!  It completely favors governments, and was imposed by
governments (i.e., the GAC).  The problem is that it doesn't work well for
anyone else, and it is not well-grounded in the rule of law (unless we are
thinking of something akin to the droit de seigneur, or perhaps the Divine
Right of Kings).



I don't know if I'll be able to be on any part of the call starting shortly,
since it is running from 1-2:30 am my time, and I don't do well on 4 hours
of sleep....  If am not, please accept my apologies.



Greg









On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:48 PM, David Cake
<dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto
:dave@davecake.net>><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net><mail
to:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net>>><mailto:dave@davecake.net<ma
ilto:dave@davecake.net><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net>><
mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net><mailto:dave@davecake.net<
mailto:dave@davecake.net>>>>> wrote:

Perth is not even unique within Australia, there is a small town in
Tasmania. But the point about ambiguity remaining even if we restrict it to
concepts like ‘capital’ is a very good one.



David (resident of the Western Australian Perth)



On 30 Apr 2018, at 1:18 pm, Liz Williams
<liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.willia
ms@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>><mailto:liz.williams@auda.or
g.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto
:liz.williams@auda.org.au>>><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.will
iams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.o
rg.au>><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mai
lto:liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>>>>> wrote:



Hello everyone



I wanted to start a new thread of conversation about city names ahead of our
upcoming conference call.   We are being encouraged by our co-chairs to
think about city names as TLDs. The first point is, perhaps, to recognise
the “success” of some previous city TLDs including Berlin, Paris, NYC and so
on.  Those applications went through very specific requirements for
evaluation and, now, hopefully serve the requirements of local communities.
We should hope that, in any new round, the experiences of those cities will
ease the way for future applications because we have learnt something about
how and why applicants apply for place names (and I use the word place
deliberately) as top level domain labels.



For our next round of policy recommendations I wanted to use an example
which I think highlights the difficulties we face if we are prescriptive and
limited in our analysis.



Most of us know that Perth is the capital city of Western Australia.  It is
not the capital city of Australia as Canberra has that honour.  Relying on a
“is the word a capital city” question is fraught with difficulty.   It is
difficult because Perth, Scotland, has at a bare minimum had city status
since the 12th century, far longer than Perth, Australia which also has an
indigenous place name, its colonial name and a migrant demographic where the
largest majority of Perth residents come from England.  Things are
complicated by the existence of Perth in Canada which, in its own right, has
some features of a capital and, at the very least, some important historic
linkages.



And then we turn to the generic words which Jon Nevett highlighted in a
previous post (Bath, Save, New) which are also place names.



That leads us to what can we usefully and objectively recommend as treatment
of other names which are also linked to places and how those could be
treated as top level domains.  As a starting point, my recommendation would
be that we don’t have any special treatment for place names as TLDs and that
applicants for those names would be evaluated against other business and
technical criteria just like another application.  However, we might want to
think about better ways of handling an objection.  Those objections, from
whatever quarter, need to be treated in exactly the same way.  I don’t
recommend “letters of support or non-objection”.  They are too subjective,
fraught with movable political nuance and, in some cases, deeply sensitive
geo-political facts (using Jerusalem as the example).



I look forward to hearing the views of others.



Liz

….
Dr Liz Williams | International Affairs
.au Domain Administration Ltd
M: +61 436 020 595 | +44 7824 877757
E:
liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.william
s@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org
.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:
liz.williams@auda.org.au>>><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.willi
ams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.or
g.au>><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mail
to:liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>>>>
www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au><http://www.auda.org.au/><http://www.
auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au/>><http://www.auda.org.au/>

Important Notice
This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to
legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If
you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any
part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please
notify the sender and delete this message immediately.



_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:G
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:G
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gn
so-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:G
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gn
so-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:Gn
so-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gns
o-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5



_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:G
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:G
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gn
so-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:G
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gn
so-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:Gn
so-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gns
o-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5




_______________________________________________

Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list

Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:G
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:G
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gn
so-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:G
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gn
so-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:Gn
so-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gns
o-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>>>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5


_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:G
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:G
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gn
so-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:G
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gn
so-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:Gn
so-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gns
o-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5


_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:G
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:G
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gn
so-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:G
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gn
so-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:Gn
so-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:Gns
o-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5




_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:G
nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5


_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5