Dear all, Here is another summary of the issue, which could help co-leads in preparing their third party-recap: - TLDs are unique. If a string composed by one name as such is delegated others with an interest on that name will be prevented from using that name. - Distinctions based on intended use is therefore not helpful. „Intended use“ limitations also imply impractical enforcement challenges that would be posed by any circumventing on intended use by third parties, such as registrants... - city names are geographic terms that have political, historical, economic (sometimes religious) and social connotations for the populations, communities affected. - city governments have responsibilities over their names as their primary identifiers in social, national, political and economic interactions and as identification of their peoples. - Their responsibilities are laid down in different public policy and law instruments (in Switzerland we have seen that they, inter alia, have rights on their names under civil right). The city name is subject to general/public interests representent by that city government. City governments act according to the laws of the countries they are established and accountable under them. - City names as such are not subject to rights by private parties. A monopolization of a city name by private parties is forbidden under laws pertaining to business names and trademark registration in a number of jurisdictions. Trademark interests to city names refer normally to composed names („lucerne foods“) and are limited to specific products and services in certain jurisdictions, in order to avoid consumer confusion. They protect against others using that name in that category of products or services who generate confusion in the consumer. (please refer to Nicks Email on this). - Applicants for a string (eg of a city name) have a specific and direct interest to their application, are interested in certainty and in not receiving objections when they are well into an application process. Such applicants are aware of ICANN and its procedures, as this is a prerequisite for obtaining the delegation. - Applicants will usually be aware that the string they wish to apply for is also a city name. If not they can do a search and identify potential cities with that name. ICANN and GAC Members can help identifying relevant public authorities (AGB 2012). - City Governments (hundreds of thousands worlwide) do not know ICANN. They cannot be expected to monitor its proceedings and actively look for their city names being applied for and to object within deadlines they ignore. - Non-objection-letters worked generally well under the 2012 AGB, in 60+ cases. - Only few cases (1-2) have been referred to where potential issues with the „non-objection“ as such were identified. - Further study of such cases could be warranted, considering evidence from the parties involved, i.e. both applicants and relevant public authorities. This analysis could warrant identifying improvements to the non-objection-letter. At the same time, the fact that no agreement was found between applicants and city governments may have different, legitimate causes. - Non-objection letters fairly puts the burden on the party with specific and direct interests in the application to reach out to the relevant public authorities of the corresponding city. It gets those specific interest-holders on a table with the representatives of the public interest of the people living in the city with that name. This system allows for different solutions to be worked out between the parties, which may go from „laisser-faire“, to participation in governance of the string, to joint initiatives etc. - If more than one city has the same name, all benefit equally from the nom-objection instrument, as all have a say. - Potential issues to be further analysed: a) cases where issues arose with the non-objection letter as such. Improvements to the non-objection letter system. b) ... Hope this is helpful best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:49:39 MESZ An: liz.williams@auda.org.au <liz.williams@auda.org.au> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Dear Liz Thanks, but one has to reflect all views when you try such a thing. You just summarize the views of those people with your views. And you conclude it with your initial statement (100 messages ago) on the non-objection-letter, without having considered the arguments of others... that, you may concede, is not quite objective... To be short: we have four very capable co-leads and staff, let’s them do their job and produce a third-party summary of the discussion so far. Best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:43:24 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Jorge If you want to do a better job of summarising things as we track along, go right ahead. That task is always open to anyone on the group, the co-chairs and ICANN staff supporting the work. I really don’t give a fig who does it…it just needs to be done so that we are moving along diligently. Otherwise we end up in ridiculous circles of oneupmanship which I don’t care for. I’ve done more than enough in my time of trying to read rough consensus, considering differing points of view and trying to come up with best practice that I really don’t mind who does what. It all needs to be fed back to the bigger SubPro group and then to the GNSO and then to the Board and then to public comment so we are MILES from any final position. 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> 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 7 May 2018, at 2:34 pm, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Liz I guess that you mean that this is a good summary of the opinions expressed by some, but which do not represent those expressed by many others (e.g. Alexander, Kathrin, Nick, Giacomo, Marita, Yrjo, Nouar, Kavouss... and I). Let‘s leave these summaries to the co-leads. Otherwise we will have many different summaries. best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 02:00:49 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> Cc: gnso-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>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Hello everyone I am really pleased that this thread has yielded such a diverse set of perspectives. I wanted to, if we could, try to wrap up some things that we may or may not have consensus on so that we can discuss that on the next call. That might help the co-chairs and staff? 1. We want to continue to have clear, objective and fact based policies associated with the assessment of all TLD applications. This, of course, includes geographic terms. 2. We need to have clear application evaluation procedures that ensure that the ICANN Board, GAC, applicants understand exactly what their respective roles are. In a multi-stakeholder environment, no one has primacy over another. The GAC is very different from national governments and can only provide collective consensus advice to the ICANN Board. The GAC has no operational role. However, individual member governments may have different opinions about specific applications for TLDs. These two things are no different from what we had hoped would happen in previous rounds. Where we have diverged is that the role of the Board and GAC and the ICANN organisation dramatically changed the implementation of the evaluation process for many applicants. Interference in the evaluation process was problematic and unfair as has been demonstrated in numerous examples. We need to address that unfairness in implementation suggestions. For the next round, I would suggest that we, at a policy level, do not change 1 above. However, we should have plenty to say on the implementation of those policies because, given the level of disagreement/misunderstanding/positioning, we are not in agreement.

From listening to the discussion I think we have general consensus that

1. Geographic terms are important for the next round of applications for many reasons which are consistent with ICANN’s Mission and Core Values. 2. That the expansion of “lists” of things is not an effective or useful or reliable way of determining what could be in or out beyond ISO 3166. Expansion of the application of national law into the international realm of the domain name system is neither effective or appropriate. We already have in place numerous elements which can be relied upon by applications and evaluators to fairly and predictably “treat” applications for TLD labels that may have geographic significance. 3. We agree that governments may be concerned with geographic terms but they do not own them or control or have a right of veto over an application. Governments are legitimate applicants for geographic terms. They are also legitimate objectors, like any one else, to applications. Looking forward to hearing other views but I hope that we, finally, get rid of the “non-objection” artifact which can be capricious (if a government changes), subjective (because we haven’t successfully articulated what non-objection looks like on a consistent basis), and it is much easier to either support something or object to it (using clearly set out guidelines). Best wishes. 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.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 7 May 2018, at 9:24 am, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: I want to thank Alexander for so ably expressing a view that I can really resonate with. Cities are as unique and culturally relevant as countries -- many of them have been around longer than the countries they now reside in (Istanbul). Would it be possible to create a list of cities that are large enough that their names should be treated as reserved for the use of the people of that city to identify themselves just as countries do through ccTLD's? Could we set the conditions that would lead to such a list? Inevitably, some cities would be excluded and seek inclusion. But we have to start somewhere. Marita Moll On 5/5/2018 1:41 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Robin, I think you and I share a certain “distain” for regulation exercised through “Governments”. You write: “It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don’t, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis.” You and Greg are seemingly working off the assumption that somebody wants to help GOVERNMENTS to “protect” their territories in the DNS. But why don’t you and Greg ever think about THE PEOPLE? I honestly couldn’t care less about Governments – but I do care very much and very passionate about PEOPLE. And we need to make sure that the constituents of a city are looped into the decision what happens to their city name in the DNS. In the 2012 AGB this was facilitated by CITY Governments (NOT national Governments). Forget for a moment about “Governments” – and root for THE PEOPLE: How to protect THEM? NOT from “misrepresentation” – but from the ability to identify themselves through city gTLD domain names (see the equivalent via ccTLDs). Hence my proposal to REQUIRE a “community priority application” if the string is identical to a (“sizeable”) city: I want that THE PEOPLE in a city are INVOLVED. Not enough to just go to the major, promise 85% of (diluted) “profits” – and then blanket the space with hundreds of non-managed city gTLDs applied for to “just make big bucks”; instead of having locally managed and promoted CITY initiatives that THRIVE! Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 7:20 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> 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> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: 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. I think Greg’s suggestion to focus on intended use is a very helpful suggestion for our work. It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don’t, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis. We don’t want to encourage a misrepresentation, but we also are obligated to recognize competing legitimate interests to the same term and in cases where there is no misrepresentation connected with the intended use of TLD with geographic meaning, those applicants should be allowed to go forward, unless they violate international law on some other ground. Thanks, Robin On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: 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><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><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><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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto: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/>> 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<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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:32 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>, 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<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>, 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>> <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/><http://France.com<http://france.com/>>. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<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@rodenbaugh.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>, 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.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<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>>>>,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: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:gnso-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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto: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@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@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:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>>; 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.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.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.inter.net>>>>;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: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:gnso-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<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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:28 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto: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-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@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@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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<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<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: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.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@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: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: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 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<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: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.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@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@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@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@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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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@schubert.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<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: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: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>>>> 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-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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@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><mailto: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<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: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:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-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><mailto: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<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.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.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.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.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.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.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/>><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: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: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>>>> 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: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: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>>>> 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: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: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>>>> 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: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: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>>>> 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: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: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>>>> 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: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<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

Dear colleagues, As one of the co-chairs in WT5 I have followed the discussion but kept myself in the background to see where this discussion leads. As co-chairs we have to be neutral, even if the 4 of us represent different SO/AC groups and, I am sure, have different views. But we all want to get a solution that is predictable and as close to full consensus as possible. However, I would like to remind members to only add new points rather than reiterating the same points already raised and to focus on a specific task or topic at hand. It is not easy for those of us not having English as our mother tongue formulate our opinions and we do not have the power of argumentation that those with English as native language have. This should also be thought of. I am afraid there are members in WT5 that is totally overwhelmed by this and do not feel it within their power to go against those strong and competent comments. Still, I encourage everyone interested in this issue to raise their voice. It is obvious that the differences are huge between the SO/ACs on this issue. And I do feel that the conversation is going in circles here. It would be good if members submit specific proposals that take all views into consideration. I would like to remind you and highlight some resources as starting points for discussion regarding proposals -- there are a number of proposals put forward in the 2017 webinars that might be helpful to draw on: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2017-04-25+Geographic+Names+Webina... In addition, the facilitators of the geo names sessions at ICANN59 did a very good job of summarizing some of the underlying interests and possible paths forward, based on interviews with different stakeholders and input through discussions at the meeting (see slides): https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=66081677 Some of this might provide inspiration in the discussion on ways to create greater structure. Thanks to everyone for your eagerness and dedication to discuss this issue. As a last point, I would like to remind you that also the AGB 2012 rules on cities were a compromise, that the multistakeholders used long time to find and that have worked quite well even if not everybody got what they wanted. Kind regards, Annebeth From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Mazzone, Giacomo" <mazzone@ebu.ch> Date: Monday, 7 May 2018 at 09:54 To: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Dear Jorge, This seems to me a more balanced summary of the discussion. There are some points that could be even more motivated (I see ,for instance, that you don't mentioned the cases from Italy that I mentioned in my mails, like "Capri" , where international brands company where denied to use these names in the Court without previous agreement of the local authorities) but we can improve the wording later. Thank you Jorge for this work. Giacomo -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: lundi 7 mai 2018 07:43 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 Dear all, Here is another summary of the issue, which could help co-leads in preparing their third party-recap: - TLDs are unique. If a string composed by one name as such is delegated others with an interest on that name will be prevented from using that name. - Distinctions based on intended use is therefore not helpful. "Intended use" limitations also imply impractical enforcement challenges that would be posed by any circumventing on intended use by third parties, such as registrants... - city names are geographic terms that have political, historical, economic (sometimes religious) and social connotations for the populations, communities affected. - city governments have responsibilities over their names as their primary identifiers in social, national, political and economic interactions and as identification of their peoples. - Their responsibilities are laid down in different public policy and law instruments (in Switzerland we have seen that they, inter alia, have rights on their names under civil right). The city name is subject to general/public interests representent by that city government. City governments act according to the laws of the countries they are established and accountable under them. - City names as such are not subject to rights by private parties. A monopolization of a city name by private parties is forbidden under laws pertaining to business names and trademark registration in a number of jurisdictions. Trademark interests to city names refer normally to composed names ("lucerne foods") and are limited to specific products and services in certain jurisdictions, in order to avoid consumer confusion. They protect against others using that name in that category of products or services who generate confusion in the consumer. (please refer to Nicks Email on this). - Applicants for a string (eg of a city name) have a specific and direct interest to their application, are interested in certainty and in not receiving objections when they are well into an application process. Such applicants are aware of ICANN and its procedures, as this is a prerequisite for obtaining the delegation. - Applicants will usually be aware that the string they wish to apply for is also a city name. If not they can do a search and identify potential cities with that name. ICANN and GAC Members can help identifying relevant public authorities (AGB 2012). - City Governments (hundreds of thousands worlwide) do not know ICANN. They cannot be expected to monitor its proceedings and actively look for their city names being applied for and to object within deadlines they ignore. - Non-objection-letters worked generally well under the 2012 AGB, in 60+ cases. - Only few cases (1-2) have been referred to where potential issues with the "non-objection" as such were identified. - Further study of such cases could be warranted, considering evidence from the parties involved, i.e. both applicants and relevant public authorities. This analysis could warrant identifying improvements to the non-objection-letter. At the same time, the fact that no agreement was found between applicants and city governments may have different, legitimate causes. - Non-objection letters fairly puts the burden on the party with specific and direct interests in the application to reach out to the relevant public authorities of the corresponding city. It gets those specific interest-holders on a table with the representatives of the public interest of the people living in the city with that name. This system allows for different solutions to be worked out between the parties, which may go from "laisser-faire", to participation in governance of the string, to joint initiatives etc. - If more than one city has the same name, all benefit equally from the nom-objection instrument, as all have a say. - Potential issues to be further analysed: a) cases where issues arose with the non-objection letter as such. Improvements to the non-objection letter system. b) ... Hope this is helpful best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:49:39 MESZ An: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> Cc: gnso-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>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Dear Liz Thanks, but one has to reflect all views when you try such a thing. You just summarize the views of those people with your views. And you conclude it with your initial statement (100 messages ago) on the non-objection-letter, without having considered the arguments of others... that, you may concede, is not quite objective... To be short: we have four very capable co-leads and staff, let's them do their job and produce a third-party summary of the discussion so far. Best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:43:24 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: 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 Jorge If you want to do a better job of summarising things as we track along, go right ahead. That task is always open to anyone on the group, the co-chairs and ICANN staff supporting the work. I really don't give a fig who does it.it just needs to be done so that we are moving along diligently. Otherwise we end up in ridiculous circles of oneupmanship which I don't care for. I've done more than enough in my time of trying to read rough consensus, considering differing points of view and trying to come up with best practice that I really don't mind who does what. It all needs to be fed back to the bigger SubPro group and then to the GNSO and then to the Board and then to public comment so we are MILES from any final position. 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.williams@auda.org.au> 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 7 May 2018, at 2:34 pm, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Liz I guess that you mean that this is a good summary of the opinions expressed by some, but which do not represent those expressed by many others (e.g. Alexander, Kathrin, Nick, Giacomo, Marita, Yrjo, Nouar, Kavouss... and I). Let's leave these summaries to the co-leads. Otherwise we will have many different summaries. best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e>> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 02:00:49 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-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%3e>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Hello everyone I am really pleased that this thread has yielded such a diverse set of perspectives. I wanted to, if we could, try to wrap up some things that we may or may not have consensus on so that we can discuss that on the next call. That might help the co-chairs and staff? 1. We want to continue to have clear, objective and fact based policies associated with the assessment of all TLD applications. This, of course, includes geographic terms. 2. We need to have clear application evaluation procedures that ensure that the ICANN Board, GAC, applicants understand exactly what their respective roles are. In a multi-stakeholder environment, no one has primacy over another. The GAC is very different from national governments and can only provide collective consensus advice to the ICANN Board. The GAC has no operational role. However, individual member governments may have different opinions about specific applications for TLDs. These two things are no different from what we had hoped would happen in previous rounds. Where we have diverged is that the role of the Board and GAC and the ICANN organisation dramatically changed the implementation of the evaluation process for many applicants. Interference in the evaluation process was problematic and unfair as has been demonstrated in numerous examples. We need to address that unfairness in implementation suggestions. For the next round, I would suggest that we, at a policy level, do not change 1 above. However, we should have plenty to say on the implementation of those policies because, given the level of disagreement/misunderstanding/positioning, we are not in agreement. From listening to the discussion I think we have general consensus that 1. Geographic terms are important for the next round of applications for many reasons which are consistent with ICANN's Mission and Core Values. 2. That the expansion of "lists" of things is not an effective or useful or reliable way of determining what could be in or out beyond ISO 3166. Expansion of the application of national law into the international realm of the domain name system is neither effective or appropriate. We already have in place numerous elements which can be relied upon by applications and evaluators to fairly and predictably "treat" applications for TLD labels that may have geographic significance. 3. We agree that governments may be concerned with geographic terms but they do not own them or control or have a right of veto over an application. Governments are legitimate applicants for geographic terms. They are also legitimate objectors, like any one else, to applications. Looking forward to hearing other views but I hope that we, finally, get rid of the "non-objection" artifact which can be capricious (if a government changes), subjective (because we haven't successfully articulated what non-objection looks like on a consistent basis), and it is much easier to either support something or object to it (using clearly set out guidelines). Best wishes. 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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au><http://www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au%3e%3chttp:/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 7 May 2018, at 9:24 am, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e>> wrote: I want to thank Alexander for so ably expressing a view that I can really resonate with. Cities are as unique and culturally relevant as countries -- many of them have been around longer than the countries they now reside in (Istanbul). Would it be possible to create a list of cities that are large enough that their names should be treated as reserved for the use of the people of that city to identify themselves just as countries do through ccTLD's? Could we set the conditions that would lead to such a list? Inevitably, some cities would be excluded and seek inclusion. But we have to start somewhere. Marita Moll On 5/5/2018 1:41 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Robin, I think you and I share a certain "distain" for regulation exercised through "Governments". You write: "It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis." You and Greg are seemingly working off the assumption that somebody wants to help GOVERNMENTS to "protect" their territories in the DNS. But why don't you and Greg ever think about THE PEOPLE? I honestly couldn't care less about Governments - but I do care very much and very passionate about PEOPLE. And we need to make sure that the constituents of a city are looped into the decision what happens to their city name in the DNS. In the 2012 AGB this was facilitated by CITY Governments (NOT national Governments). Forget for a moment about "Governments" - and root for THE PEOPLE: How to protect THEM? NOT from "misrepresentation" - but from the ability to identify themselves through city gTLD domain names (see the equivalent via ccTLDs). Hence my proposal to REQUIRE a "community priority application" if the string is identical to a ("sizeable") city: I want that THE PEOPLE in a city are INVOLVED. Not enough to just go to the major, promise 85% of (diluted) "profits" - and then blanket the space with hundreds of non-managed city gTLDs applied for to "just make big bucks"; instead of having locally managed and promoted CITY initiatives that THRIVE! Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 7:20 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> 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%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e>> wrote: 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. I think Greg's suggestion to focus on intended use is a very helpful suggestion for our work. It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis. We don't want to encourage a misrepresentation, but we also are obligated to recognize competing legitimate interests to the same term and in cases where there is no misrepresentation connected with the intended use of TLD with geographic meaning, those applicants should be allowed to go forward, unless they violate international law on some other ground. Thanks, Robin On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e>> wrote: 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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e>> 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><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e>> 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><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e>> 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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto: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/><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3ewww.auda.org.au%3chttp://www.auda.org.au%3e%3chttp://www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp://www.auda.org.au%3chttp://www.auda.org.au/%3e>> 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><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e>> 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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/><http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:32 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e>> 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<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e>> 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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e>>, 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.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e>> <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.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e>>, 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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e>> <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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e>> 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/><http://France.com<http://france.com/><http://france.com/%3e%3chttp:/France.com%3chttp:/france.com/%3e>>. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/><http://rodenbaugh.com/><http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:19 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e>> 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@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3e>> 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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3e>>, 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.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e>> <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.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: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:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e,gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e>> <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:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/><http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3e%3e>] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2018 09:49 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3e>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3e%3e>>; 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.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.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.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>>;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: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:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e;gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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<http://city.com/><http://city.com/>><http://city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3e%3chttp:/city.com%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3e>> 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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/><http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:28 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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-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@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@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@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%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3e>] 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><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: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.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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: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: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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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><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: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.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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<mailto:image001.png@01D3E2D4.C11E9F30>] ________________________________ From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <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@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@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@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@icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.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><mailto:alexander@schubert.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%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3e%3e>> Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 5:16 PM To: 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: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: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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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-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@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%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>] 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<mailto: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>><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net>>><mailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e>> 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: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: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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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<mailto: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>><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net>>>><mailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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.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.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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>>>><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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.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.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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>>><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3e>> 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/>><http://www.auda.org.au/<http://www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au/%3e%3e%3chttp:/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: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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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: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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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: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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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: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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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: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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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: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%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e>> 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: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: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: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: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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** _______________________________________________ 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

Dear Paul Your requirement starts from an erroneous assumption, i.e. that we need international law for our policy options. As said before, we are in ICANN do develop policy in a multistakeholder fashion, with the global public interest as ultimate goal. Pursuant to the Bylaws, international law and applicable local laws have to be respected in that journey, but they do not determine the full body of policy – otherwise we would not be here… Or are you calling for an international body to take over the tasks of the multistakeholder model which is ICANN? Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Paul Rosenzweig Gesendet: Montag, 7. Mai 2018 14:44 An: 'Annebeth Lange' <annebeth.lange@norid.no>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names So here is a specific proposal: “No geo name gets priority unless it is a name recognized in international law or by some international body of standard setting. No geo name gets priority if it is held by more than one geo location.” I have asked, twice, for those supporting the city names to identify either international law or an international standard for defining which ones are to be given priority. Supporters have yet to point to any such definitive, normative list. Absent such a list, prioritizing a geo name is just picking a winner. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 5:55 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Dear colleagues, As one of the co-chairs in WT5 I have followed the discussion but kept myself in the background to see where this discussion leads. As co-chairs we have to be neutral, even if the 4 of us represent different SO/AC groups and, I am sure, have different views. But we all want to get a solution that is predictable and as close to full consensus as possible. However, I would like to remind members to only add new points rather than reiterating the same points already raised and to focus on a specific task or topic at hand. It is not easy for those of us not having English as our mother tongue formulate our opinions and we do not have the power of argumentation that those with English as native language have. This should also be thought of. I am afraid there are members in WT5 that is totally overwhelmed by this and do not feel it within their power to go against those strong and competent comments. Still, I encourage everyone interested in this issue to raise their voice. It is obvious that the differences are huge between the SO/ACs on this issue. And I do feel that the conversation is going in circles here. It would be good if members submit specific proposals that take all views into consideration. I would like to remind you and highlight some resources as starting points for discussion regarding proposals -- there are a number of proposals put forward in the 2017 webinars that might be helpful to draw on: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2017-04-25+Geographic+Names+Webina... In addition, the facilitators of the geo names sessions at ICANN59 did a very good job of summarizing some of the underlying interests and possible paths forward, based on interviews with different stakeholders and input through discussions at the meeting (see slides): https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=66081677 Some of this might provide inspiration in the discussion on ways to create greater structure. Thanks to everyone for your eagerness and dedication to discuss this issue. As a last point, I would like to remind you that also the AGB 2012 rules on cities were a compromise, that the multistakeholders used long time to find and that have worked quite well even if not everybody got what they wanted. Kind regards, Annebeth From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Mazzone, Giacomo" <mazzone@ebu.ch<mailto:mazzone@ebu.ch>> Date: Monday, 7 May 2018 at 09:54 To: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <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>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Dear Jorge, This seems to me a more balanced summary of the discussion. There are some points that could be even more motivated (I see ,for instance, that you don't mentioned the cases from Italy that I mentioned in my mails, like "Capri" , where international brands company where denied to use these names in the Court without previous agreement of the local authorities) but we can improve the wording later. Thank you Jorge for this work. Giacomo -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: lundi 7 mai 2018 07:43 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 Dear all, Here is another summary of the issue, which could help co-leads in preparing their third party-recap: - TLDs are unique. If a string composed by one name as such is delegated others with an interest on that name will be prevented from using that name. - Distinctions based on intended use is therefore not helpful. "Intended use" limitations also imply impractical enforcement challenges that would be posed by any circumventing on intended use by third parties, such as registrants... - city names are geographic terms that have political, historical, economic (sometimes religious) and social connotations for the populations, communities affected. - city governments have responsibilities over their names as their primary identifiers in social, national, political and economic interactions and as identification of their peoples. - Their responsibilities are laid down in different public policy and law instruments (in Switzerland we have seen that they, inter alia, have rights on their names under civil right). The city name is subject to general/public interests representent by that city government. City governments act according to the laws of the countries they are established and accountable under them. - City names as such are not subject to rights by private parties. A monopolization of a city name by private parties is forbidden under laws pertaining to business names and trademark registration in a number of jurisdictions. Trademark interests to city names refer normally to composed names ("lucerne foods") and are limited to specific products and services in certain jurisdictions, in order to avoid consumer confusion. They protect against others using that name in that category of products or services who generate confusion in the consumer. (please refer to Nicks Email on this). - Applicants for a string (eg of a city name) have a specific and direct interest to their application, are interested in certainty and in not receiving objections when they are well into an application process. Such applicants are aware of ICANN and its procedures, as this is a prerequisite for obtaining the delegation. - Applicants will usually be aware that the string they wish to apply for is also a city name. If not they can do a search and identify potential cities with that name. ICANN and GAC Members can help identifying relevant public authorities (AGB 2012). - City Governments (hundreds of thousands worlwide) do not know ICANN. They cannot be expected to monitor its proceedings and actively look for their city names being applied for and to object within deadlines they ignore. - Non-objection-letters worked generally well under the 2012 AGB, in 60+ cases. - Only few cases (1-2) have been referred to where potential issues with the "non-objection" as such were identified. - Further study of such cases could be warranted, considering evidence from the parties involved, i.e. both applicants and relevant public authorities. This analysis could warrant identifying improvements to the non-objection-letter. At the same time, the fact that no agreement was found between applicants and city governments may have different, legitimate causes. - Non-objection letters fairly puts the burden on the party with specific and direct interests in the application to reach out to the relevant public authorities of the corresponding city. It gets those specific interest-holders on a table with the representatives of the public interest of the people living in the city with that name. This system allows for different solutions to be worked out between the parties, which may go from "laisser-faire", to participation in governance of the string, to joint initiatives etc. - If more than one city has the same name, all benefit equally from the nom-objection instrument, as all have a say. - Potential issues to be further analysed: a) cases where issues arose with the non-objection letter as such. Improvements to the non-objection letter system. b) ... Hope this is helpful best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:49:39 MESZ An: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> Cc: gnso-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>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Dear Liz Thanks, but one has to reflect all views when you try such a thing. You just summarize the views of those people with your views. And you conclude it with your initial statement (100 messages ago) on the non-objection-letter, without having considered the arguments of others... that, you may concede, is not quite objective... To be short: we have four very capable co-leads and staff, let's them do their job and produce a third-party summary of the discussion so far. Best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:43:24 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: 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 Jorge If you want to do a better job of summarising things as we track along, go right ahead. That task is always open to anyone on the group, the co-chairs and ICANN staff supporting the work. I really don't give a fig who does it.it just needs to be done so that we are moving along diligently. Otherwise we end up in ridiculous circles of oneupmanship which I don't care for. I've done more than enough in my time of trying to read rough consensus, considering differing points of view and trying to come up with best practice that I really don't mind who does what. It all needs to be fed back to the bigger SubPro group and then to the GNSO and then to the Board and then to public comment so we are MILES from any final position. 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.williams@auda.org.au> 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 7 May 2018, at 2:34 pm, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Liz I guess that you mean that this is a good summary of the opinions expressed by some, but which do not represent those expressed by many others (e.g. Alexander, Kathrin, Nick, Giacomo, Marita, Yrjo, Nouar, Kavouss... and I). Let's leave these summaries to the co-leads. Otherwise we will have many different summaries. best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e>> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 02:00:49 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-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%3e>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Hello everyone I am really pleased that this thread has yielded such a diverse set of perspectives. I wanted to, if we could, try to wrap up some things that we may or may not have consensus on so that we can discuss that on the next call. That might help the co-chairs and staff? 1. We want to continue to have clear, objective and fact based policies associated with the assessment of all TLD applications. This, of course, includes geographic terms. 2. We need to have clear application evaluation procedures that ensure that the ICANN Board, GAC, applicants understand exactly what their respective roles are. In a multi-stakeholder environment, no one has primacy over another. The GAC is very different from national governments and can only provide collective consensus advice to the ICANN Board. The GAC has no operational role. However, individual member governments may have different opinions about specific applications for TLDs. These two things are no different from what we had hoped would happen in previous rounds. Where we have diverged is that the role of the Board and GAC and the ICANN organisation dramatically changed the implementation of the evaluation process for many applicants. Interference in the evaluation process was problematic and unfair as has been demonstrated in numerous examples. We need to address that unfairness in implementation suggestions. For the next round, I would suggest that we, at a policy level, do not change 1 above. However, we should have plenty to say on the implementation of those policies because, given the level of disagreement/misunderstanding/positioning, we are not in agreement. From listening to the discussion I think we have general consensus that 1. Geographic terms are important for the next round of applications for many reasons which are consistent with ICANN's Mission and Core Values. 2. That the expansion of "lists" of things is not an effective or useful or reliable way of determining what could be in or out beyond ISO 3166. Expansion of the application of national law into the international realm of the domain name system is neither effective or appropriate. We already have in place numerous elements which can be relied upon by applications and evaluators to fairly and predictably "treat" applications for TLD labels that may have geographic significance. 3. We agree that governments may be concerned with geographic terms but they do not own them or control or have a right of veto over an application. Governments are legitimate applicants for geographic terms. They are also legitimate objectors, like any one else, to applications. Looking forward to hearing other views but I hope that we, finally, get rid of the "non-objection" artifact which can be capricious (if a government changes), subjective (because we haven't successfully articulated what non-objection looks like on a consistent basis), and it is much easier to either support something or object to it (using clearly set out guidelines). Best wishes. 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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au><http://www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au%3e%3chttp:/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 7 May 2018, at 9:24 am, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e>> wrote: I want to thank Alexander for so ably expressing a view that I can really resonate with. Cities are as unique and culturally relevant as countries -- many of them have been around longer than the countries they now reside in (Istanbul). Would it be possible to create a list of cities that are large enough that their names should be treated as reserved for the use of the people of that city to identify themselves just as countries do through ccTLD's? Could we set the conditions that would lead to such a list? Inevitably, some cities would be excluded and seek inclusion. But we have to start somewhere. Marita Moll On 5/5/2018 1:41 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Robin, I think you and I share a certain "distain" for regulation exercised through "Governments". You write: "It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis." You and Greg are seemingly working off the assumption that somebody wants to help GOVERNMENTS to "protect" their territories in the DNS. But why don't you and Greg ever think about THE PEOPLE? I honestly couldn't care less about Governments - but I do care very much and very passionate about PEOPLE. And we need to make sure that the constituents of a city are looped into the decision what happens to their city name in the DNS. In the 2012 AGB this was facilitated by CITY Governments (NOT national Governments). Forget for a moment about "Governments" - and root for THE PEOPLE: How to protect THEM? NOT from "misrepresentation" - but from the ability to identify themselves through city gTLD domain names (see the equivalent via ccTLDs). Hence my proposal to REQUIRE a "community priority application" if the string is identical to a ("sizeable") city: I want that THE PEOPLE in a city are INVOLVED. Not enough to just go to the major, promise 85% of (diluted) "profits" - and then blanket the space with hundreds of non-managed city gTLDs applied for to "just make big bucks"; instead of having locally managed and promoted CITY initiatives that THRIVE! Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 7:20 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> 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%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e>> wrote: 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. I think Greg's suggestion to focus on intended use is a very helpful suggestion for our work. It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis. We don't want to encourage a misrepresentation, but we also are obligated to recognize competing legitimate interests to the same term and in cases where there is no misrepresentation connected with the intended use of TLD with geographic meaning, those applicants should be allowed to go forward, unless they violate international law on some other ground. Thanks, Robin On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e>> wrote: 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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e>> 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><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e>> 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><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e>> 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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto: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/><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3ewww.auda.org.au%3chttp://www.auda.org.au%3e%3chttp://www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp://www.auda.org.au%3chttp://www.auda.org.au/%3e>> 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><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e>> 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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/><http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:32 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e>> 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<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e>> 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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e>>, 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.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e>> <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.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e>>, 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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e>> <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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e>> 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/><http://France.com<http://france.com/><http://france.com/%3e%3chttp:/France.com%3chttp:/france.com/%3e>>. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/><http://rodenbaugh.com/><http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:19 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e>> 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@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3e>> 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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3e>>, 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.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e>> <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.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: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:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e,gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e>> <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:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/><http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3e%3e>] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2018 09:49 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3e>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3e%3e>>; 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.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.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.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>>;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: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:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e;gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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<http://city.com/><http://city.com/>><http://city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3e%3chttp:/city.com%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3e>> 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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/><http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:28 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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-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@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@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@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%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3e>] 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><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: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.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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: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: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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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><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: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.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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<mailto:image001.png@01D3E2D4.C11E9F30>] ________________________________ From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <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@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@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@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@icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.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><mailto:alexander@schubert.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%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3e%3e>> Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 5:16 PM To: 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: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: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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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-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@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%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>] 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<mailto: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>><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net>>><mailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e>> 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: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: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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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<mailto: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>><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net>>>><mailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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.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.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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>>>><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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.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.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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>>><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3e>> 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/>><http://www.auda.org.au/<http://www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au/%3e%3e%3chttp:/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: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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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: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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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: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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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: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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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: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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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: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%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e>> 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: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: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: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: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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** _______________________________________________ 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

Ahhh … GDPR. In my view it is probably a “good” law – as in close to one I prefer. But let’s not pretend that ICANN is adopting to it because it is “good.” It is being forced down our throats by EU governments. I dislike the unilateral actions of goverments even when they are in favor of actions I might otherwise approve of. Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone@ebu.ch> Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 9:14 AM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; annebeth.lange@norid.no; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Dear Paul, Unless we assume that ICANN has to follow one law among the many that exist in the world, I think that our duty is to look around and find the best practices that could solve most of the issues we have to face. In a very pragmatic way. In cases there is none –as this one - we have to look for what is the best possible option in the real world around us. As we are doing with GDPR and privacy. Would this mean that ICANN is going to embrace EU regulation ? certainly not. I assume that we look at GDPR because we think that could be one best practice that try to compromise between Human Rights (right to privacy in this case) and freedom of market. I would be delighted if we shall be able to do the same also in this field. Giacomo From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: lundi 7 mai 2018 14:53 To: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> ; annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> ; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Dear Paul Your requirement starts from an erroneous assumption, i.e. that we need international law for our policy options. As said before, we are in ICANN do develop policy in a multistakeholder fashion, with the global public interest as ultimate goal. Pursuant to the Bylaws, international law and applicable local laws have to be respected in that journey, but they do not determine the full body of policy – otherwise we would not be here… Or are you calling for an international body to take over the tasks of the multistakeholder model which is ICANN? Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Paul Rosenzweig Gesendet: Montag, 7. Mai 2018 14:44 An: 'Annebeth Lange' <annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> >; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names So here is a specific proposal: “No geo name gets priority unless it is a name recognized in international law or by some international body of standard setting. No geo name gets priority if it is held by more than one geo location.” I have asked, twice, for those supporting the city names to identify either international law or an international standard for defining which ones are to be given priority. Supporters have yet to point to any such definitive, normative list. Absent such a list, prioritizing a geo name is just picking a winner. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 5:55 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Dear colleagues, As one of the co-chairs in WT5 I have followed the discussion but kept myself in the background to see where this discussion leads. As co-chairs we have to be neutral, even if the 4 of us represent different SO/AC groups and, I am sure, have different views. But we all want to get a solution that is predictable and as close to full consensus as possible. However, I would like to remind members to only add new points rather than reiterating the same points already raised and to focus on a specific task or topic at hand. It is not easy for those of us not having English as our mother tongue formulate our opinions and we do not have the power of argumentation that those with English as native language have. This should also be thought of. I am afraid there are members in WT5 that is totally overwhelmed by this and do not feel it within their power to go against those strong and competent comments. Still, I encourage everyone interested in this issue to raise their voice. It is obvious that the differences are huge between the SO/ACs on this issue. And I do feel that the conversation is going in circles here. It would be good if members submit specific proposals that take all views into consideration. I would like to remind you and highlight some resources as starting points for discussion regarding proposals -- there are a number of proposals put forward in the 2017 webinars that might be helpful to draw on: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2017-04-25+Geographic+Names+Webina... In addition, the facilitators of the geo names sessions at ICANN59 did a very good job of summarizing some of the underlying interests and possible paths forward, based on interviews with different stakeholders and input through discussions at the meeting (see slides): https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=66081677 Some of this might provide inspiration in the discussion on ways to create greater structure. Thanks to everyone for your eagerness and dedication to discuss this issue. As a last point, I would like to remind you that also the AGB 2012 rules on cities were a compromise, that the multistakeholders used long time to find and that have worked quite well even if not everybody got what they wanted. Kind regards, Annebeth From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of "Mazzone, Giacomo" <mazzone@ebu.ch <mailto:mazzone@ebu.ch> > Date: Monday, 7 May 2018 at 09:54 To: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> " <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> " <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Dear Jorge, This seems to me a more balanced summary of the discussion. There are some points that could be even more motivated (I see ,for instance, that you don't mentioned the cases from Italy that I mentioned in my mails, like "Capri" , where international brands company where denied to use these names in the Court without previous agreement of the local authorities) but we can improve the wording later. Thank you Jorge for this work. Giacomo -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: lundi 7 mai 2018 07:43 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 Dear all, Here is another summary of the issue, which could help co-leads in preparing their third party-recap: - TLDs are unique. If a string composed by one name as such is delegated others with an interest on that name will be prevented from using that name. - Distinctions based on intended use is therefore not helpful. "Intended use" limitations also imply impractical enforcement challenges that would be posed by any circumventing on intended use by third parties, such as registrants... - city names are geographic terms that have political, historical, economic (sometimes religious) and social connotations for the populations, communities affected. - city governments have responsibilities over their names as their primary identifiers in social, national, political and economic interactions and as identification of their peoples. - Their responsibilities are laid down in different public policy and law instruments (in Switzerland we have seen that they, inter alia, have rights on their names under civil right). The city name is subject to general/public interests representent by that city government. City governments act according to the laws of the countries they are established and accountable under them. - City names as such are not subject to rights by private parties. A monopolization of a city name by private parties is forbidden under laws pertaining to business names and trademark registration in a number of jurisdictions. Trademark interests to city names refer normally to composed names ("lucerne foods") and are limited to specific products and services in certain jurisdictions, in order to avoid consumer confusion. They protect against others using that name in that category of products or services who generate confusion in the consumer. (please refer to Nicks Email on this). - Applicants for a string (eg of a city name) have a specific and direct interest to their application, are interested in certainty and in not receiving objections when they are well into an application process. Such applicants are aware of ICANN and its procedures, as this is a prerequisite for obtaining the delegation. - Applicants will usually be aware that the string they wish to apply for is also a city name. If not they can do a search and identify potential cities with that name. ICANN and GAC Members can help identifying relevant public authorities (AGB 2012). - City Governments (hundreds of thousands worlwide) do not know ICANN. They cannot be expected to monitor its proceedings and actively look for their city names being applied for and to object within deadlines they ignore. - Non-objection-letters worked generally well under the 2012 AGB, in 60+ cases. - Only few cases (1-2) have been referred to where potential issues with the "non-objection" as such were identified. - Further study of such cases could be warranted, considering evidence from the parties involved, i.e. both applicants and relevant public authorities. This analysis could warrant identifying improvements to the non-objection-letter. At the same time, the fact that no agreement was found between applicants and city governments may have different, legitimate causes. - Non-objection letters fairly puts the burden on the party with specific and direct interests in the application to reach out to the relevant public authorities of the corresponding city. It gets those specific interest-holders on a table with the representatives of the public interest of the people living in the city with that name. This system allows for different solutions to be worked out between the parties, which may go from "laisser-faire", to participation in governance of the string, to joint initiatives etc. - If more than one city has the same name, all benefit equally from the nom-objection instrument, as all have a say. - Potential issues to be further analysed: a) cases where issues arose with the non-objection letter as such. Improvements to the non-objection letter system. b) ... Hope this is helpful best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:49:39 MESZ An: liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> <liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> > Cc: gnso-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> > Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Dear Liz Thanks, but one has to reflect all views when you try such a thing. You just summarize the views of those people with your views. And you conclude it with your initial statement (100 messages ago) on the non-objection-letter, without having considered the arguments of others... that, you may concede, is not quite objective... To be short: we have four very capable co-leads and staff, let's them do their job and produce a third-party summary of the discussion so far. Best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> > Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:43:24 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > Cc: 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 Jorge If you want to do a better job of summarising things as we track along, go right ahead. That task is always open to anyone on the group, the co-chairs and ICANN staff supporting the work. I really don't give a fig who does it.it just needs to be done so that we are moving along diligently. Otherwise we end up in ridiculous circles of oneupmanship which I don't care for. I've done more than enough in my time of trying to read rough consensus, considering differing points of view and trying to come up with best practice that I really don't mind who does what. It all needs to be fed back to the bigger SubPro group and then to the GNSO and then to the Board and then to public comment so we are MILES from any final position. 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.williams@auda.org.au> 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 7 May 2018, at 2:34 pm, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Liz I guess that you mean that this is a good summary of the opinions expressed by some, but which do not represent those expressed by many others (e.g. Alexander, Kathrin, Nick, Giacomo, Marita, Yrjo, Nouar, Kavouss... and I). Let's leave these summaries to the co-leads. Otherwise we will have many different summaries. best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e> >> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 02:00:49 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e> >> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-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%3e> >> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Hello everyone I am really pleased that this thread has yielded such a diverse set of perspectives. I wanted to, if we could, try to wrap up some things that we may or may not have consensus on so that we can discuss that on the next call. That might help the co-chairs and staff? 1. We want to continue to have clear, objective and fact based policies associated with the assessment of all TLD applications. This, of course, includes geographic terms. 2. We need to have clear application evaluation procedures that ensure that the ICANN Board, GAC, applicants understand exactly what their respective roles are. In a multi-stakeholder environment, no one has primacy over another. The GAC is very different from national governments and can only provide collective consensus advice to the ICANN Board. The GAC has no operational role. However, individual member governments may have different opinions about specific applications for TLDs. These two things are no different from what we had hoped would happen in previous rounds. Where we have diverged is that the role of the Board and GAC and the ICANN organisation dramatically changed the implementation of the evaluation process for many applicants. Interference in the evaluation process was problematic and unfair as has been demonstrated in numerous examples. We need to address that unfairness in implementation suggestions. For the next round, I would suggest that we, at a policy level, do not change 1 above. However, we should have plenty to say on the implementation of those policies because, given the level of disagreement/misunderstanding/positioning, we are not in agreement.

From listening to the discussion I think we have general consensus that

1. Geographic terms are important for the next round of applications for many reasons which are consistent with ICANN's Mission and Core Values. 2. That the expansion of "lists" of things is not an effective or useful or reliable way of determining what could be in or out beyond ISO 3166. Expansion of the application of national law into the international realm of the domain name system is neither effective or appropriate. We already have in place numerous elements which can be relied upon by applications and evaluators to fairly and predictably "treat" applications for TLD labels that may have geographic significance. 3. We agree that governments may be concerned with geographic terms but they do not own them or control or have a right of veto over an application. Governments are legitimate applicants for geographic terms. They are also legitimate objectors, like any one else, to applications. Looking forward to hearing other views but I hope that we, finally, get rid of the "non-objection" artifact which can be capricious (if a government changes), subjective (because we haven't successfully articulated what non-objection looks like on a consistent basis), and it is much easier to either support something or object to it (using clearly set out guidelines). Best wishes. 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.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto: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%3e%3chttp:/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 7 May 2018, at 9:24 am, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e> ><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: I want to thank Alexander for so ably expressing a view that I can really resonate with. Cities are as unique and culturally relevant as countries -- many of them have been around longer than the countries they now reside in (Istanbul). Would it be possible to create a list of cities that are large enough that their names should be treated as reserved for the use of the people of that city to identify themselves just as countries do through ccTLD's? Could we set the conditions that would lead to such a list? Inevitably, some cities would be excluded and seek inclusion. But we have to start somewhere. Marita Moll On 5/5/2018 1:41 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Robin, I think you and I share a certain "distain" for regulation exercised through "Governments". You write: "It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis." You and Greg are seemingly working off the assumption that somebody wants to help GOVERNMENTS to "protect" their territories in the DNS. But why don't you and Greg ever think about THE PEOPLE? I honestly couldn't care less about Governments - but I do care very much and very passionate about PEOPLE. And we need to make sure that the constituents of a city are looped into the decision what happens to their city name in the DNS. In the 2012 AGB this was facilitated by CITY Governments (NOT national Governments). Forget for a moment about "Governments" - and root for THE PEOPLE: How to protect THEM? NOT from "misrepresentation" - but from the ability to identify themselves through city gTLD domain names (see the equivalent via ccTLDs). Hence my proposal to REQUIRE a "community priority application" if the string is identical to a ("sizeable") city: I want that THE PEOPLE in a city are INVOLVED. Not enough to just go to the major, promise 85% of (diluted) "profits" - and then blanket the space with hundreds of non-managed city gTLDs applied for to "just make big bucks"; instead of having locally managed and promoted CITY initiatives that THRIVE! Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 7:20 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> 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%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e> ><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: 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. I think Greg's suggestion to focus on intended use is a very helpful suggestion for our work. It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis. We don't want to encourage a misrepresentation, but we also are obligated to recognize competing legitimate interests to the same term and in cases where there is no misrepresentation connected with the intended use of TLD with geographic meaning, those applicants should be allowed to go forward, unless they violate international law on some other ground. Thanks, Robin On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e> ><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: 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> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e> ><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> <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e> ><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> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e> ><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.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3ewww.auda.org.au%3chttp://www.auda.org.au%3e%3chttp://www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp://www.auda.org...> ><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto: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/>> 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%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e> ><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%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e> <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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e> ><mailto:Jorge.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%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e> ><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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e> ><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e> ><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>, mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e> ><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e> ><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>, 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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e> ><mailto:gnso-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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e> ><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/ <http://france.com/%3e%3chttp:/France.com%3chttp:/france.com/%3e> ><http://France.com<http://france.com/>>. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e> <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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e> ><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<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%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3e> ><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e> ><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3e> ><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>, mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e> ><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:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>> <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.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: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>>> <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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e> ><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>>>> 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%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e> <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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>>>>> 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%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3e%3e> <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>>>>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>>; 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.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.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.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>>;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: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:gnso-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/%3e%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com%3chttp:/city.com/%...> ><http://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%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e> <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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>>>>> 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-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@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@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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<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 <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e> ><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: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.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@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: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: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 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 <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e> ><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: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.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@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 <mailto:image001.png@01D3E2D4.C11E9F30> ] ________________________________ From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <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@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@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@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@icann.org>>>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3e%3e> ><mailto:alexander@schubert.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<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: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: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: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-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e> <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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@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%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e> ><mailto: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<mailto: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: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: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>>>> 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%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e%3e> ><mailto: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<mailto: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.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.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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto: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.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.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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto: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/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org....> ><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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e> ><mailto: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> <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: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: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: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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** _______________________________________________ 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 _____ ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway **************************************************

Dear Paul Thanks for dropping that „international law“ „requirement”. It certainly would be useful if you also considered the importance of the Bylaws provision that ICANN has to act in conformity with applicable local law. You may not like that, but it is a fact of the framework we work with. Apart from that, as far as I know this discussion about “letter of non-objection” is about obtaining a non-objection from the relevant public authorities. If there are multiple cities with the very same name, from all of them equally, as is provided for in the AGB. Obtaining the letter of non-objection is a requirement for the application to go forward, but does not give you a “right” to the TLD – that will depend on complying with all the other requirements and going through all the process. And obtaining such a letter is open to any interested applicants, be it brand owners with interests on trademarks which may coincide with that city name, be it communities, be it private business, etc. It is up to the parties to come up with the best agreement in their shared interest. I would appreciate that you would propose constructive and feasible solutions that would respect the interests and rights of cities in their names. Just ignoring such interests and rights is the best recipe for protracted conflicts between applicants and relevant public authorities, which is something we have seen happening in some applications regarding terms with geographic significance not falling under the “non-objection” rule. Best regards Jorge Von: Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com] Gesendet: Montag, 7. Mai 2018 15:24 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; annebeth.lange@norid.no; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names No I am calling for those, like you, who are seeking to take priority over other people to justify that. So far all you have offered is the anodyne view that “cities have history.” That is, to my mind, insufficient (and also inaccurate, but that is another matter). If the multistakeholder model is to mean anything it is to mean working of a set of standards that are of general applicability – not the rule of the powerful. So, if we are just “voting” my vote is that city names are not to be given priority. To many of them are multiplicious (see, e.g. Athens – who gets that one); too many have become part of common useage (e.g. Sandwich) and too many of them are just subterfuges for protectionism. Until you can identify a neutral principle that works from behind the Rawlsian veil of ignorance, all you are doing is asserting “I should win because my view of the importance of city names is a higher value than your view of intellectual property.” Sorry, that’s not persuasive. Show me a rule or a policy that existed before this debate began and I’ll consider it. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 8:53 AM To: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Dear Paul Your requirement starts from an erroneous assumption, i.e. that we need international law for our policy options. As said before, we are in ICANN do develop policy in a multistakeholder fashion, with the global public interest as ultimate goal. Pursuant to the Bylaws, international law and applicable local laws have to be respected in that journey, but they do not determine the full body of policy – otherwise we would not be here… Or are you calling for an international body to take over the tasks of the multistakeholder model which is ICANN? Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Paul Rosenzweig Gesendet: Montag, 7. Mai 2018 14:44 An: 'Annebeth Lange' <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names So here is a specific proposal: “No geo name gets priority unless it is a name recognized in international law or by some international body of standard setting. No geo name gets priority if it is held by more than one geo location.” I have asked, twice, for those supporting the city names to identify either international law or an international standard for defining which ones are to be given priority. Supporters have yet to point to any such definitive, normative list. Absent such a list, prioritizing a geo name is just picking a winner. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 5:55 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Dear colleagues, As one of the co-chairs in WT5 I have followed the discussion but kept myself in the background to see where this discussion leads. As co-chairs we have to be neutral, even if the 4 of us represent different SO/AC groups and, I am sure, have different views. But we all want to get a solution that is predictable and as close to full consensus as possible. However, I would like to remind members to only add new points rather than reiterating the same points already raised and to focus on a specific task or topic at hand. It is not easy for those of us not having English as our mother tongue formulate our opinions and we do not have the power of argumentation that those with English as native language have. This should also be thought of. I am afraid there are members in WT5 that is totally overwhelmed by this and do not feel it within their power to go against those strong and competent comments. Still, I encourage everyone interested in this issue to raise their voice. It is obvious that the differences are huge between the SO/ACs on this issue. And I do feel that the conversation is going in circles here. It would be good if members submit specific proposals that take all views into consideration. I would like to remind you and highlight some resources as starting points for discussion regarding proposals -- there are a number of proposals put forward in the 2017 webinars that might be helpful to draw on: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2017-04-25+Geographic+Names+Webina... In addition, the facilitators of the geo names sessions at ICANN59 did a very good job of summarizing some of the underlying interests and possible paths forward, based on interviews with different stakeholders and input through discussions at the meeting (see slides): https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=66081677 Some of this might provide inspiration in the discussion on ways to create greater structure. Thanks to everyone for your eagerness and dedication to discuss this issue. As a last point, I would like to remind you that also the AGB 2012 rules on cities were a compromise, that the multistakeholders used long time to find and that have worked quite well even if not everybody got what they wanted. Kind regards, Annebeth From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Mazzone, Giacomo" <mazzone@ebu.ch<mailto:mazzone@ebu.ch>> Date: Monday, 7 May 2018 at 09:54 To: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <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>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Dear Jorge, This seems to me a more balanced summary of the discussion. There are some points that could be even more motivated (I see ,for instance, that you don't mentioned the cases from Italy that I mentioned in my mails, like "Capri" , where international brands company where denied to use these names in the Court without previous agreement of the local authorities) but we can improve the wording later. Thank you Jorge for this work. Giacomo -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: lundi 7 mai 2018 07:43 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 Dear all, Here is another summary of the issue, which could help co-leads in preparing their third party-recap: - TLDs are unique. If a string composed by one name as such is delegated others with an interest on that name will be prevented from using that name. - Distinctions based on intended use is therefore not helpful. "Intended use" limitations also imply impractical enforcement challenges that would be posed by any circumventing on intended use by third parties, such as registrants... - city names are geographic terms that have political, historical, economic (sometimes religious) and social connotations for the populations, communities affected. - city governments have responsibilities over their names as their primary identifiers in social, national, political and economic interactions and as identification of their peoples. - Their responsibilities are laid down in different public policy and law instruments (in Switzerland we have seen that they, inter alia, have rights on their names under civil right). The city name is subject to general/public interests representent by that city government. City governments act according to the laws of the countries they are established and accountable under them. - City names as such are not subject to rights by private parties. A monopolization of a city name by private parties is forbidden under laws pertaining to business names and trademark registration in a number of jurisdictions. Trademark interests to city names refer normally to composed names ("lucerne foods") and are limited to specific products and services in certain jurisdictions, in order to avoid consumer confusion. They protect against others using that name in that category of products or services who generate confusion in the consumer. (please refer to Nicks Email on this). - Applicants for a string (eg of a city name) have a specific and direct interest to their application, are interested in certainty and in not receiving objections when they are well into an application process. Such applicants are aware of ICANN and its procedures, as this is a prerequisite for obtaining the delegation. - Applicants will usually be aware that the string they wish to apply for is also a city name. If not they can do a search and identify potential cities with that name. ICANN and GAC Members can help identifying relevant public authorities (AGB 2012). - City Governments (hundreds of thousands worlwide) do not know ICANN. They cannot be expected to monitor its proceedings and actively look for their city names being applied for and to object within deadlines they ignore. - Non-objection-letters worked generally well under the 2012 AGB, in 60+ cases. - Only few cases (1-2) have been referred to where potential issues with the "non-objection" as such were identified. - Further study of such cases could be warranted, considering evidence from the parties involved, i.e. both applicants and relevant public authorities. This analysis could warrant identifying improvements to the non-objection-letter. At the same time, the fact that no agreement was found between applicants and city governments may have different, legitimate causes. - Non-objection letters fairly puts the burden on the party with specific and direct interests in the application to reach out to the relevant public authorities of the corresponding city. It gets those specific interest-holders on a table with the representatives of the public interest of the people living in the city with that name. This system allows for different solutions to be worked out between the parties, which may go from "laisser-faire", to participation in governance of the string, to joint initiatives etc. - If more than one city has the same name, all benefit equally from the nom-objection instrument, as all have a say. - Potential issues to be further analysed: a) cases where issues arose with the non-objection letter as such. Improvements to the non-objection letter system. b) ... Hope this is helpful best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:49:39 MESZ An: liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> Cc: gnso-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>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Dear Liz Thanks, but one has to reflect all views when you try such a thing. You just summarize the views of those people with your views. And you conclude it with your initial statement (100 messages ago) on the non-objection-letter, without having considered the arguments of others... that, you may concede, is not quite objective... To be short: we have four very capable co-leads and staff, let's them do their job and produce a third-party summary of the discussion so far. Best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:43:24 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: 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 Jorge If you want to do a better job of summarising things as we track along, go right ahead. That task is always open to anyone on the group, the co-chairs and ICANN staff supporting the work. I really don't give a fig who does it.it just needs to be done so that we are moving along diligently. Otherwise we end up in ridiculous circles of oneupmanship which I don't care for. I've done more than enough in my time of trying to read rough consensus, considering differing points of view and trying to come up with best practice that I really don't mind who does what. It all needs to be fed back to the bigger SubPro group and then to the GNSO and then to the Board and then to public comment so we are MILES from any final position. 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.williams@auda.org.au> 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 7 May 2018, at 2:34 pm, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Liz I guess that you mean that this is a good summary of the opinions expressed by some, but which do not represent those expressed by many others (e.g. Alexander, Kathrin, Nick, Giacomo, Marita, Yrjo, Nouar, Kavouss... and I). Let's leave these summaries to the co-leads. Otherwise we will have many different summaries. best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e>> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 02:00:49 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-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%3e>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Hello everyone I am really pleased that this thread has yielded such a diverse set of perspectives. I wanted to, if we could, try to wrap up some things that we may or may not have consensus on so that we can discuss that on the next call. That might help the co-chairs and staff? 1. We want to continue to have clear, objective and fact based policies associated with the assessment of all TLD applications. This, of course, includes geographic terms. 2. We need to have clear application evaluation procedures that ensure that the ICANN Board, GAC, applicants understand exactly what their respective roles are. In a multi-stakeholder environment, no one has primacy over another. The GAC is very different from national governments and can only provide collective consensus advice to the ICANN Board. The GAC has no operational role. However, individual member governments may have different opinions about specific applications for TLDs. These two things are no different from what we had hoped would happen in previous rounds. Where we have diverged is that the role of the Board and GAC and the ICANN organisation dramatically changed the implementation of the evaluation process for many applicants. Interference in the evaluation process was problematic and unfair as has been demonstrated in numerous examples. We need to address that unfairness in implementation suggestions. For the next round, I would suggest that we, at a policy level, do not change 1 above. However, we should have plenty to say on the implementation of those policies because, given the level of disagreement/misunderstanding/positioning, we are not in agreement. From listening to the discussion I think we have general consensus that 1. Geographic terms are important for the next round of applications for many reasons which are consistent with ICANN's Mission and Core Values. 2. That the expansion of "lists" of things is not an effective or useful or reliable way of determining what could be in or out beyond ISO 3166. Expansion of the application of national law into the international realm of the domain name system is neither effective or appropriate. We already have in place numerous elements which can be relied upon by applications and evaluators to fairly and predictably "treat" applications for TLD labels that may have geographic significance. 3. We agree that governments may be concerned with geographic terms but they do not own them or control or have a right of veto over an application. Governments are legitimate applicants for geographic terms. They are also legitimate objectors, like any one else, to applications. Looking forward to hearing other views but I hope that we, finally, get rid of the "non-objection" artifact which can be capricious (if a government changes), subjective (because we haven't successfully articulated what non-objection looks like on a consistent basis), and it is much easier to either support something or object to it (using clearly set out guidelines). Best wishes. 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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au><http://www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au%3e%3chttp:/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 7 May 2018, at 9:24 am, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e>> wrote: I want to thank Alexander for so ably expressing a view that I can really resonate with. Cities are as unique and culturally relevant as countries -- many of them have been around longer than the countries they now reside in (Istanbul). Would it be possible to create a list of cities that are large enough that their names should be treated as reserved for the use of the people of that city to identify themselves just as countries do through ccTLD's? Could we set the conditions that would lead to such a list? Inevitably, some cities would be excluded and seek inclusion. But we have to start somewhere. Marita Moll On 5/5/2018 1:41 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Robin, I think you and I share a certain "distain" for regulation exercised through "Governments". You write: "It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis." You and Greg are seemingly working off the assumption that somebody wants to help GOVERNMENTS to "protect" their territories in the DNS. But why don't you and Greg ever think about THE PEOPLE? I honestly couldn't care less about Governments - but I do care very much and very passionate about PEOPLE. And we need to make sure that the constituents of a city are looped into the decision what happens to their city name in the DNS. In the 2012 AGB this was facilitated by CITY Governments (NOT national Governments). Forget for a moment about "Governments" - and root for THE PEOPLE: How to protect THEM? NOT from "misrepresentation" - but from the ability to identify themselves through city gTLD domain names (see the equivalent via ccTLDs). Hence my proposal to REQUIRE a "community priority application" if the string is identical to a ("sizeable") city: I want that THE PEOPLE in a city are INVOLVED. Not enough to just go to the major, promise 85% of (diluted) "profits" - and then blanket the space with hundreds of non-managed city gTLDs applied for to "just make big bucks"; instead of having locally managed and promoted CITY initiatives that THRIVE! Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 7:20 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> 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%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e>> wrote: 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. I think Greg's suggestion to focus on intended use is a very helpful suggestion for our work. It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis. We don't want to encourage a misrepresentation, but we also are obligated to recognize competing legitimate interests to the same term and in cases where there is no misrepresentation connected with the intended use of TLD with geographic meaning, those applicants should be allowed to go forward, unless they violate international law on some other ground. Thanks, Robin On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e>> wrote: 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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e>> 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><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e>> 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><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e>> 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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto: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/><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3ewww.auda.org.au%3chttp://www.auda.org.au%3e%3chttp://www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp://www.auda.org.au%3chttp://www.auda.org.au/%3e>> 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><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e>> 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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/><http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:32 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e>> 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<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e>> 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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e>>, 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.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e>> <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.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e>>, 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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e>> <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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e>> 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/><http://France.com<http://france.com/><http://france.com/%3e%3chttp:/France.com%3chttp:/france.com/%3e>>. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/><http://rodenbaugh.com/><http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:19 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e>> 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@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3e>> 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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3e>>, 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.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e>> <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.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: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:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e,gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e>> <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:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/><http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3e%3e>] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2018 09:49 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3e>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3e%3e>>; 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.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.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.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>>;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: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:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e;gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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<http://city.com/><http://city.com/>><http://city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3e%3chttp:/city.com%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3e>> 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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/><http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:28 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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-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@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@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@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%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3e>] 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><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: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.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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: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: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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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><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: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.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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<mailto:image001.png@01D3E2D4.C11E9F30>] ________________________________ From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <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@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@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@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@icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.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><mailto:alexander@schubert.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%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3e%3e>> Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 5:16 PM To: 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: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: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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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-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@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%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>] 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<mailto: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>><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net>>><mailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e>> 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: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: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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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<mailto: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>><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net>>>><mailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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.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.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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>>>><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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.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.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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>>><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3e>> 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/>><http://www.auda.org.au/<http://www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au/%3e%3e%3chttp:/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: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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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: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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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: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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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: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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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: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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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: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%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e>> 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: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: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: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: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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** _______________________________________________ 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

If your proposal really is that every city in the world that has Athens in its name must sign off on who gets Athens or that the city of Sandwich MA (as small but pleasant place BTW) can stop the delegation of Sandwich, I disagree. My feasible solution is simple – nobody gets priority. When/If the .sandwich TLD is offered up, everyone should get notice of that fact. We might even send as special invitatation to Sandwich MA and Sandwich, UK (and any other Sandwichs out there) all of who can, if they choose, submit applications. The one that meets the criteria best, gets the TLD, just like in any other auction. Works quite well. And if the .Sandwich folks run afoul of local Sandwich law in the UK, they’ll have to deal with it in the UK. Your proposal that “it is up to the parties” to get the best result is exactly right. The problem is that you would give Lucerne a veto power. Everyone who studies economics knows that this sort of priority causes rent-seeking, distorts markets and is economically counter-productive. I understand why Lucerne wants to export its rights globally. I would too in their position. But recognizing local law applied locally is not the same as giving global effect to Swiss law. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 9:40 AM To: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; annebeth.lange@norid.no; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Dear Paul Thanks for dropping that „international law“ „requirement”. It certainly would be useful if you also considered the importance of the Bylaws provision that ICANN has to act in conformity with applicable local law. You may not like that, but it is a fact of the framework we work with. Apart from that, as far as I know this discussion about “letter of non-objection” is about obtaining a non-objection from the relevant public authorities. If there are multiple cities with the very same name, from all of them equally, as is provided for in the AGB. Obtaining the letter of non-objection is a requirement for the application to go forward, but does not give you a “right” to the TLD – that will depend on complying with all the other requirements and going through all the process. And obtaining such a letter is open to any interested applicants, be it brand owners with interests on trademarks which may coincide with that city name, be it communities, be it private business, etc. It is up to the parties to come up with the best agreement in their shared interest. I would appreciate that you would propose constructive and feasible solutions that would respect the interests and rights of cities in their names. Just ignoring such interests and rights is the best recipe for protracted conflicts between applicants and relevant public authorities, which is something we have seen happening in some applications regarding terms with geographic significance not falling under the “non-objection” rule. Best regards Jorge Von: Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com] Gesendet: Montag, 7. Mai 2018 15:24 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >; annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> ; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names No I am calling for those, like you, who are seeking to take priority over other people to justify that. So far all you have offered is the anodyne view that “cities have history.” That is, to my mind, insufficient (and also inaccurate, but that is another matter). If the multistakeholder model is to mean anything it is to mean working of a set of standards that are of general applicability – not the rule of the powerful. So, if we are just “voting” my vote is that city names are not to be given priority. To many of them are multiplicious (see, e.g. Athens – who gets that one); too many have become part of common useage (e.g. Sandwich) and too many of them are just subterfuges for protectionism. Until you can identify a neutral principle that works from behind the Rawlsian veil of ignorance, all you are doing is asserting “I should win because my view of the importance of city names is a higher value than your view of intellectual property.” Sorry, that’s not persuasive. Show me a rule or a policy that existed before this debate began and I’ll consider it. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 8:53 AM To: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> ; annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> ; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Dear Paul Your requirement starts from an erroneous assumption, i.e. that we need international law for our policy options. As said before, we are in ICANN do develop policy in a multistakeholder fashion, with the global public interest as ultimate goal. Pursuant to the Bylaws, international law and applicable local laws have to be respected in that journey, but they do not determine the full body of policy – otherwise we would not be here… Or are you calling for an international body to take over the tasks of the multistakeholder model which is ICANN? Best Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Paul Rosenzweig Gesendet: Montag, 7. Mai 2018 14:44 An: 'Annebeth Lange' <annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> >; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names So here is a specific proposal: “No geo name gets priority unless it is a name recognized in international law or by some international body of standard setting. No geo name gets priority if it is held by more than one geo location.” I have asked, twice, for those supporting the city names to identify either international law or an international standard for defining which ones are to be given priority. Supporters have yet to point to any such definitive, normative list. Absent such a list, prioritizing a geo name is just picking a winner. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 5:55 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Dear colleagues, As one of the co-chairs in WT5 I have followed the discussion but kept myself in the background to see where this discussion leads. As co-chairs we have to be neutral, even if the 4 of us represent different SO/AC groups and, I am sure, have different views. But we all want to get a solution that is predictable and as close to full consensus as possible. However, I would like to remind members to only add new points rather than reiterating the same points already raised and to focus on a specific task or topic at hand. It is not easy for those of us not having English as our mother tongue formulate our opinions and we do not have the power of argumentation that those with English as native language have. This should also be thought of. I am afraid there are members in WT5 that is totally overwhelmed by this and do not feel it within their power to go against those strong and competent comments. Still, I encourage everyone interested in this issue to raise their voice. It is obvious that the differences are huge between the SO/ACs on this issue. And I do feel that the conversation is going in circles here. It would be good if members submit specific proposals that take all views into consideration. I would like to remind you and highlight some resources as starting points for discussion regarding proposals -- there are a number of proposals put forward in the 2017 webinars that might be helpful to draw on: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2017-04-25+Geographic+Names+Webina... In addition, the facilitators of the geo names sessions at ICANN59 did a very good job of summarizing some of the underlying interests and possible paths forward, based on interviews with different stakeholders and input through discussions at the meeting (see slides): https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=66081677 Some of this might provide inspiration in the discussion on ways to create greater structure. Thanks to everyone for your eagerness and dedication to discuss this issue. As a last point, I would like to remind you that also the AGB 2012 rules on cities were a compromise, that the multistakeholders used long time to find and that have worked quite well even if not everybody got what they wanted. Kind regards, Annebeth From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of "Mazzone, Giacomo" <mazzone@ebu.ch <mailto:mazzone@ebu.ch> > Date: Monday, 7 May 2018 at 09:54 To: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> " <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> " <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Dear Jorge, This seems to me a more balanced summary of the discussion. There are some points that could be even more motivated (I see ,for instance, that you don't mentioned the cases from Italy that I mentioned in my mails, like "Capri" , where international brands company where denied to use these names in the Court without previous agreement of the local authorities) but we can improve the wording later. Thank you Jorge for this work. Giacomo -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: lundi 7 mai 2018 07:43 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 Dear all, Here is another summary of the issue, which could help co-leads in preparing their third party-recap: - TLDs are unique. If a string composed by one name as such is delegated others with an interest on that name will be prevented from using that name. - Distinctions based on intended use is therefore not helpful. "Intended use" limitations also imply impractical enforcement challenges that would be posed by any circumventing on intended use by third parties, such as registrants... - city names are geographic terms that have political, historical, economic (sometimes religious) and social connotations for the populations, communities affected. - city governments have responsibilities over their names as their primary identifiers in social, national, political and economic interactions and as identification of their peoples. - Their responsibilities are laid down in different public policy and law instruments (in Switzerland we have seen that they, inter alia, have rights on their names under civil right). The city name is subject to general/public interests representent by that city government. City governments act according to the laws of the countries they are established and accountable under them. - City names as such are not subject to rights by private parties. A monopolization of a city name by private parties is forbidden under laws pertaining to business names and trademark registration in a number of jurisdictions. Trademark interests to city names refer normally to composed names ("lucerne foods") and are limited to specific products and services in certain jurisdictions, in order to avoid consumer confusion. They protect against others using that name in that category of products or services who generate confusion in the consumer. (please refer to Nicks Email on this). - Applicants for a string (eg of a city name) have a specific and direct interest to their application, are interested in certainty and in not receiving objections when they are well into an application process. Such applicants are aware of ICANN and its procedures, as this is a prerequisite for obtaining the delegation. - Applicants will usually be aware that the string they wish to apply for is also a city name. If not they can do a search and identify potential cities with that name. ICANN and GAC Members can help identifying relevant public authorities (AGB 2012). - City Governments (hundreds of thousands worlwide) do not know ICANN. They cannot be expected to monitor its proceedings and actively look for their city names being applied for and to object within deadlines they ignore. - Non-objection-letters worked generally well under the 2012 AGB, in 60+ cases. - Only few cases (1-2) have been referred to where potential issues with the "non-objection" as such were identified. - Further study of such cases could be warranted, considering evidence from the parties involved, i.e. both applicants and relevant public authorities. This analysis could warrant identifying improvements to the non-objection-letter. At the same time, the fact that no agreement was found between applicants and city governments may have different, legitimate causes. - Non-objection letters fairly puts the burden on the party with specific and direct interests in the application to reach out to the relevant public authorities of the corresponding city. It gets those specific interest-holders on a table with the representatives of the public interest of the people living in the city with that name. This system allows for different solutions to be worked out between the parties, which may go from "laisser-faire", to participation in governance of the string, to joint initiatives etc. - If more than one city has the same name, all benefit equally from the nom-objection instrument, as all have a say. - Potential issues to be further analysed: a) cases where issues arose with the non-objection letter as such. Improvements to the non-objection letter system. b) ... Hope this is helpful best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:49:39 MESZ An: liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> <liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> > Cc: gnso-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> > Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Dear Liz Thanks, but one has to reflect all views when you try such a thing. You just summarize the views of those people with your views. And you conclude it with your initial statement (100 messages ago) on the non-objection-letter, without having considered the arguments of others... that, you may concede, is not quite objective... To be short: we have four very capable co-leads and staff, let's them do their job and produce a third-party summary of the discussion so far. Best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> > Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:43:24 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > Cc: 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 Jorge If you want to do a better job of summarising things as we track along, go right ahead. That task is always open to anyone on the group, the co-chairs and ICANN staff supporting the work. I really don't give a fig who does it.it just needs to be done so that we are moving along diligently. Otherwise we end up in ridiculous circles of oneupmanship which I don't care for. I've done more than enough in my time of trying to read rough consensus, considering differing points of view and trying to come up with best practice that I really don't mind who does what. It all needs to be fed back to the bigger SubPro group and then to the GNSO and then to the Board and then to public comment so we are MILES from any final position. 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.williams@auda.org.au> 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 7 May 2018, at 2:34 pm, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Liz I guess that you mean that this is a good summary of the opinions expressed by some, but which do not represent those expressed by many others (e.g. Alexander, Kathrin, Nick, Giacomo, Marita, Yrjo, Nouar, Kavouss... and I). Let's leave these summaries to the co-leads. Otherwise we will have many different summaries. best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e> >> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 02:00:49 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e> >> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-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%3e> >> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Hello everyone I am really pleased that this thread has yielded such a diverse set of perspectives. I wanted to, if we could, try to wrap up some things that we may or may not have consensus on so that we can discuss that on the next call. That might help the co-chairs and staff? 1. We want to continue to have clear, objective and fact based policies associated with the assessment of all TLD applications. This, of course, includes geographic terms. 2. We need to have clear application evaluation procedures that ensure that the ICANN Board, GAC, applicants understand exactly what their respective roles are. In a multi-stakeholder environment, no one has primacy over another. The GAC is very different from national governments and can only provide collective consensus advice to the ICANN Board. The GAC has no operational role. However, individual member governments may have different opinions about specific applications for TLDs. These two things are no different from what we had hoped would happen in previous rounds. Where we have diverged is that the role of the Board and GAC and the ICANN organisation dramatically changed the implementation of the evaluation process for many applicants. Interference in the evaluation process was problematic and unfair as has been demonstrated in numerous examples. We need to address that unfairness in implementation suggestions. For the next round, I would suggest that we, at a policy level, do not change 1 above. However, we should have plenty to say on the implementation of those policies because, given the level of disagreement/misunderstanding/positioning, we are not in agreement.

From listening to the discussion I think we have general consensus that

1. Geographic terms are important for the next round of applications for many reasons which are consistent with ICANN's Mission and Core Values. 2. That the expansion of "lists" of things is not an effective or useful or reliable way of determining what could be in or out beyond ISO 3166. Expansion of the application of national law into the international realm of the domain name system is neither effective or appropriate. We already have in place numerous elements which can be relied upon by applications and evaluators to fairly and predictably "treat" applications for TLD labels that may have geographic significance. 3. We agree that governments may be concerned with geographic terms but they do not own them or control or have a right of veto over an application. Governments are legitimate applicants for geographic terms. They are also legitimate objectors, like any one else, to applications. Looking forward to hearing other views but I hope that we, finally, get rid of the "non-objection" artifact which can be capricious (if a government changes), subjective (because we haven't successfully articulated what non-objection looks like on a consistent basis), and it is much easier to either support something or object to it (using clearly set out guidelines). Best wishes. 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.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto: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%3e%3chttp:/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 7 May 2018, at 9:24 am, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e> ><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: I want to thank Alexander for so ably expressing a view that I can really resonate with. Cities are as unique and culturally relevant as countries -- many of them have been around longer than the countries they now reside in (Istanbul). Would it be possible to create a list of cities that are large enough that their names should be treated as reserved for the use of the people of that city to identify themselves just as countries do through ccTLD's? Could we set the conditions that would lead to such a list? Inevitably, some cities would be excluded and seek inclusion. But we have to start somewhere. Marita Moll On 5/5/2018 1:41 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Robin, I think you and I share a certain "distain" for regulation exercised through "Governments". You write: "It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis." You and Greg are seemingly working off the assumption that somebody wants to help GOVERNMENTS to "protect" their territories in the DNS. But why don't you and Greg ever think about THE PEOPLE? I honestly couldn't care less about Governments - but I do care very much and very passionate about PEOPLE. And we need to make sure that the constituents of a city are looped into the decision what happens to their city name in the DNS. In the 2012 AGB this was facilitated by CITY Governments (NOT national Governments). Forget for a moment about "Governments" - and root for THE PEOPLE: How to protect THEM? NOT from "misrepresentation" - but from the ability to identify themselves through city gTLD domain names (see the equivalent via ccTLDs). Hence my proposal to REQUIRE a "community priority application" if the string is identical to a ("sizeable") city: I want that THE PEOPLE in a city are INVOLVED. Not enough to just go to the major, promise 85% of (diluted) "profits" - and then blanket the space with hundreds of non-managed city gTLDs applied for to "just make big bucks"; instead of having locally managed and promoted CITY initiatives that THRIVE! Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 7:20 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> 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%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e> ><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: 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. I think Greg's suggestion to focus on intended use is a very helpful suggestion for our work. It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis. We don't want to encourage a misrepresentation, but we also are obligated to recognize competing legitimate interests to the same term and in cases where there is no misrepresentation connected with the intended use of TLD with geographic meaning, those applicants should be allowed to go forward, unless they violate international law on some other ground. Thanks, Robin On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e> ><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: 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> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e> ><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> <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e> ><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> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e> ><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.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3ewww.auda.org.au%3chttp://www.auda.org.au%3e%3chttp://www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp://www.auda.org...> ><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto: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/>> 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%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e> ><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%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e> <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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e> ><mailto:Jorge.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%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e> ><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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e> ><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e> ><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>, mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e> ><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e> ><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>, 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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e> ><mailto:gnso-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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e> ><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/ <http://france.com/%3e%3chttp:/France.com%3chttp:/france.com/%3e> ><http://France.com<http://france.com/>>. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e> <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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e> ><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<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%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3e> ><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e> ><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3e> ><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>, mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e> ><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:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>> <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.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: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>>> <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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e> ><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>>>> 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%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e> <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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>>>>> 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%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3e%3e> <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>>>>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>>; 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.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.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.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>>;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: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:gnso-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/%3e%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com%3chttp:/city.com/%...> ><http://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%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e> <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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>>>>> 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-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@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@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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<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 <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e> ><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: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.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@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: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: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 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 <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e> ><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: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.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@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 <mailto:image001.png@01D3E2D4.C11E9F30> ] ________________________________ From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <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@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@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@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@icann.org>>>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3e%3e> ><mailto:alexander@schubert.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<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: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: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: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-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e> <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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@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%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e> ><mailto: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<mailto: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: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: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>>>> 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%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e%3e> ><mailto: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<mailto: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.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.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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto: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.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.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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto: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/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org....> ><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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e> ><mailto: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> <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: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: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: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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** _______________________________________________ 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

Thank you Jorge for your tireless effort in this discussion. I do strongly support your points and points of few others here and appreciate the summary very much. I would just like to add my own angle on the matter. I strongly believe that interests of communities must come before corporate ones - internet is for people. So naming your company after a famous jungle or well known river or country, city or any other geographic term should not give any special rights to that name. Likewise registering a trademark Fabulous Estonia should not, and to my understanding does not give any special privileges toward terms Fabulous nor Estonia separately. I do think that countries, cities should have priority to established names because these usually represent larger communities and wider variety of interests. To solve the question of Amsterdam, Athens etc I think Alexander has pointed out a good approach - sharing, if the communities of the cities have common interest in use of the TLD. Lets think how to facilitate and support it from the ICANNs side. To deal with the risk of "greedy governments" naming their cities after famous corporations just to have that cool TLD - maybe the basis to decide who gets the delegation should be historical data - which one was established first - city or the company/organisation/trademark. When it comes to the letter of non-objection - until we have not come up with better solution I do not see the way to drop it. I personally prefer letter of support. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:01 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

Dear Paul

The requirement is already established in the 2012 AGB for good reason:

„ In the event that there is more than one

relevant government or public authority for the applied-for

gTLD string, the applicant must provide documentation of

support or non-objection from all the relevant governments

or public authorities. It is anticipated that this may apply to

the case of a sub-national place name.”

In your ideas you forget many things, (1) that city governments are not aware of ICANN; (2) that we are not talking about auctions here; (3) that the interest represented by the cities in their names is of a general, public nature, linked to their political, economic, social etc. responsibilities vis-à-vis the denomination of their city.

Lucerne the city is not just a business or a company that happens to use the cities name as part of its commercial identification for specific products and services. Lucerne is a political entity, with quite a long history, a reputation, and a responsibility to protect the interests of its citizenship, which include their identity and their name as a political community. This may be difficult to understand for you, but is reflected in local law in Switzerland in different manners. A local law that ICANN would need to respect as it is applicable.

Best

Jorge

*Von:* Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com] *Gesendet:* Montag, 7. Mai 2018 15:47 *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; annebeth.lange@norid.no; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Betreff:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

If your proposal really is that every city in the world that has Athens in its name must sign off on who gets Athens or that the city of Sandwich MA (as small but pleasant place BTW) can stop the delegation of Sandwich, I disagree.

My feasible solution is simple – nobody gets priority. When/If the .sandwich TLD is offered up, everyone should get notice of that fact. We might even send as special invitatation to Sandwich MA and Sandwich, UK (and any other Sandwichs out there) all of who can, if they choose, submit applications. The one that meets the criteria best, gets the TLD, just like in any other auction.

Works quite well. And if the .Sandwich folks run afoul of local Sandwich law in the UK, they’ll have to deal with it in the UK. Your proposal that “it is up to the parties” to get the best result is exactly right. The problem is that you would give Lucerne a veto power. Everyone who studies economics knows that this sort of priority causes rent-seeking, distorts markets and is economically counter-productive. I understand why Lucerne wants to export its rights globally. I would too in their position. But recognizing local law applied locally is not the same as giving global effect to Swiss law.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739

*From:* Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Sent:* Monday, May 7, 2018 9:40 AM *To:* paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; annebeth.lange@norid.no; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Dear Paul

Thanks for dropping that „international law“ „requirement”. It certainly would be useful if you also considered the importance of the Bylaws provision that ICANN has to act in conformity with applicable local law. You may not like that, but it is a fact of the framework we work with.

Apart from that, as far as I know this discussion about “letter of non-objection” is about obtaining a non-objection from the relevant public authorities. If there are multiple cities with the very same name, from all of them equally, as is provided for in the AGB.

Obtaining the letter of non-objection is a requirement for the application to go forward, but does not give you a “right” to the TLD – that will depend on complying with all the other requirements and going through all the process.

And obtaining such a letter is open to any interested applicants, be it brand owners with interests on trademarks which may coincide with that city name, be it communities, be it private business, etc.

It is up to the parties to come up with the best agreement in their shared interest.

I would appreciate that you would propose constructive and feasible solutions that would respect the interests and rights of cities in their names. Just ignoring such interests and rights is the best recipe for protracted conflicts between applicants and relevant public authorities, which is something we have seen happening in some applications regarding terms with geographic significance not falling under the “non-objection” rule.

Best regards

Jorge

*Von:* Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>] *Gesendet:* Montag, 7. Mai 2018 15:24 *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; annebeth.lange@norid.no; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Betreff:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

No I am calling for those, like you, who are seeking to take priority over other people to justify that. So far all you have offered is the anodyne view that “cities have history.” That is, to my mind, insufficient (and also inaccurate, but that is another matter). If the multistakeholder model is to mean anything it is to mean working of a set of standards that are of general applicability – not the rule of the powerful.

So, if we are just “voting” my vote is that city names are not to be given priority. To many of them are multiplicious (see, e.g. Athens – who gets that one); too many have become part of common useage (e.g. Sandwich) and too many of them are just subterfuges for protectionism.

Until you can identify a neutral principle that works from behind the Rawlsian veil of ignorance, all you are doing is asserting “I should win because my view of the importance of city names is a higher value than your view of intellectual property.”

Sorry, that’s not persuasive. Show me a rule or a policy that existed before this debate began and I’ll consider it.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739

*From:* Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Sent:* Monday, May 7, 2018 8:53 AM *To:* paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; annebeth.lange@norid.no; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Dear Paul

Your requirement starts from an erroneous assumption, i.e. that we need international law for our policy options.

As said before, we are in ICANN do develop policy in a multistakeholder fashion, with the global public interest as ultimate goal. Pursuant to the Bylaws, international law and applicable local laws have to be respected in that journey, but they do not determine the full body of policy – otherwise we would not be here…

Or are you calling for an international body to take over the tasks of the multistakeholder model which is ICANN?

Best

Jorge

*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Paul Rosenzweig *Gesendet:* Montag, 7. Mai 2018 14:44 *An:* 'Annebeth Lange' <annebeth.lange@norid.no>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

So here is a specific proposal: “No geo name gets priority unless it is a name recognized in international law or by some international body of standard setting. No geo name gets priority if it is held by more than one geo location.”

I have asked, twice, for those supporting the city names to identify either international law or an international standard for defining which ones are to be given priority. Supporters have yet to point to any such definitive, normative list. Absent such a list, prioritizing a geo name is just picking a winner.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739

*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Annebeth Lange *Sent:* Monday, May 7, 2018 5:55 AM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Dear colleagues,

As one of the co-chairs in WT5 I have followed the discussion but kept myself in the background to see where this discussion leads. As co-chairs we have to be neutral, even if the 4 of us represent different SO/AC groups and, I am sure, have different views. But we all want to get a solution that is predictable and as close to full consensus as possible.

However, I would like to remind members to only add new points rather than reiterating the same points already raised and to focus on a specific task or topic at hand. It is not easy for those of us not having English as our mother tongue formulate our opinions and we do not have the power of argumentation that those with English as native language have. This should also be thought of. I am afraid there are members in WT5 that is totally overwhelmed by this and do not feel it within their power

to go against those strong and competent comments. Still, I encourage everyone interested in this issue to raise their voice.

It is obvious that the differences are huge between the SO/ACs on this issue. And I do feel that the conversation is going in circles here. It would be good if members submit specific proposals that take all views into consideration.

I would like to remind you and highlight some resources as starting points for discussion regarding proposals -- there are a number of proposals put forward in the 2017 webinars that might be helpful to draw on:

https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2017-04-25+ Geographic+Names+Webinars

In addition, the facilitators of the geo names sessions at ICANN59 did a very good job of summarizing some of the underlying interests and possible paths forward, based on interviews with different stakeholders and input through discussions at the meeting (see slides):

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=66081677

Some of this might provide inspiration in the discussion on ways to create greater structure.

Thanks to everyone for your eagerness and dedication to discuss this issue. As a last point, I would like to remind you that also the AGB 2012 rules on cities were a compromise, that the multistakeholders used long time to find and that have worked quite well even if not everybody got what they wanted.

Kind regards,

Annebeth

*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Mazzone, Giacomo" <mazzone@ebu.ch> *Date: *Monday, 7 May 2018 at 09:54 *To: *"Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Dear Jorge,

This seems to me a more balanced summary of the discussion.

There are some points that could be even more motivated (I see ,for instance, that you don't mentioned the cases from Italy that I mentioned in my mails, like "Capri" , where international brands company where denied to use these names in the Court without previous agreement of the local authorities) but we can improve the wording later.

Thank you Jorge for this work.

Giacomo

-----Original Message-----

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch

Sent: lundi 7 mai 2018 07:43

To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch

Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org

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

Dear all,

Here is another summary of the issue, which could help co-leads in preparing their third party-recap:

- TLDs are unique. If a string composed by one name as such is delegated others with an interest on that name will be prevented from using that name.

- Distinctions based on intended use is therefore not helpful. "Intended use" limitations also imply impractical enforcement challenges that would be posed by any circumventing on intended use by third parties, such as registrants...

- city names are geographic terms that have political, historical, economic (sometimes religious) and social connotations for the populations, communities affected.

- city governments have responsibilities over their names as their primary identifiers in social, national, political and economic interactions and as identification of their peoples.

- Their responsibilities are laid down in different public policy and law instruments (in Switzerland we have seen that they, inter alia, have rights on their names under civil right). The city name is subject to general/public interests representent by that city government. City governments act according to the laws of the countries they are established and accountable under them.

- City names as such are not subject to rights by private parties. A monopolization of a city name by private parties is forbidden under laws pertaining to business names and trademark registration in a number of jurisdictions. Trademark interests to city names refer normally to composed names ("lucerne foods") and are limited to specific products and services in certain jurisdictions, in order to avoid consumer confusion. They protect against others using that name in that category of products or services who generate confusion in the consumer. (please refer to Nicks Email on this).

- Applicants for a string (eg of a city name) have a specific and direct interest to their application, are interested in certainty and in not receiving objections when they are well into an application process. Such applicants are aware of ICANN and its procedures, as this is a prerequisite for obtaining the delegation.

- Applicants will usually be aware that the string they wish to apply for is also a city name. If not they can do a search and identify potential cities with that name. ICANN and GAC Members can help identifying relevant public authorities (AGB 2012).

- City Governments (hundreds of thousands worlwide) do not know ICANN. They cannot be expected to monitor its proceedings and actively look for their city names being applied for and to object within deadlines they ignore.

- Non-objection-letters worked generally well under the 2012 AGB, in 60+ cases.

- Only few cases (1-2) have been referred to where potential issues with the "non-objection" as such were identified.

- Further study of such cases could be warranted, considering evidence from the parties involved, i.e. both applicants and relevant public authorities. This analysis could warrant identifying improvements to the non-objection-letter. At the same time, the fact that no agreement was found between applicants and city governments may have different, legitimate causes.

- Non-objection letters fairly puts the burden on the party with specific and direct interests in the application to reach out to the relevant public authorities of the corresponding city. It gets those specific interest-holders on a table with the representatives of the public interest of the people living in the city with that name. This system allows for different solutions to be worked out between the parties, which may go from "laisser-faire", to participation in governance of the string, to joint initiatives etc.

- If more than one city has the same name, all benefit equally from the nom-objection instrument, as all have a say.

- Potential issues to be further analysed:

a) cases where issues arose with the non-objection letter as such. Improvements to the non-objection letter system.

b) ...

Hope this is helpful

best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>

Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:49:39 MESZ

An: liz.williams@auda.org.au <liz.williams@auda.org.au>

Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>

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

Dear Liz

Thanks, but one has to reflect all views when you try such a thing. You just summarize the views of those people with your views. And you conclude it with your initial statement (100 messages ago) on the non-objection-letter, without having considered the arguments of others... that, you may concede, is not quite objective...

To be short: we have four very capable co-leads and staff, let's them do their job and produce a third-party summary of the discussion so far.

Best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au>

Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:43:24 MESZ

An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>

Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>

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

Jorge

If you want to do a better job of summarising things as we track along, go right ahead. That task is always open to anyone on the group, the co-chairs and ICANN staff supporting the work. I really don't give a fig who does it.it just needs to be done so that we are moving along diligently. Otherwise we end up in ridiculous circles of oneupmanship which I don't care for.

I've done more than enough in my time of trying to read rough consensus, considering differing points of view and trying to come up with best practice that I really don't mind who does what.

It all needs to be fed back to the bigger SubPro group and then to the GNSO and then to the Board and then to public comment so we are MILES from any final position.

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 <liz.williams@auda.org.au>> 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 7 May 2018, at 2:34 pm, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<ma ilto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:

Dear Liz

I guess that you mean that this is a good summary of the opinions expressed by some, but which do not represent those expressed by many others (e.g. Alexander, Kathrin, Nick, Giacomo, Marita, Yrjo, Nouar, Kavouss... and I).

Let's leave these summaries to the co-leads. Otherwise we will have many different summaries.

best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mail to:liz.williams@auda.org.au> <liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e>>

Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 02:00:49 MESZ

An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e>>

Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org< mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e>>

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

Hello everyone

I am really pleased that this thread has yielded such a diverse set of perspectives. I wanted to, if we could, try to wrap up some things that we may or may not have consensus on so that we can discuss that on the next call. That might help the co-chairs and staff?

1. We want to continue to have clear, objective and fact based policies associated with the assessment of all TLD applications. This, of course, includes geographic terms.

2. We need to have clear application evaluation procedures that ensure that the ICANN Board, GAC, applicants understand exactly what their respective roles are. In a multi-stakeholder environment, no one has primacy over another. The GAC is very different from national governments and can only provide collective consensus advice to the ICANN Board. The GAC has no operational role. However, individual member governments may have different opinions about specific applications for TLDs.

These two things are no different from what we had hoped would happen in previous rounds. Where we have diverged is that the role of the Board and GAC and the ICANN organisation dramatically changed the implementation of the evaluation process for many applicants. Interference in the evaluation process was problematic and unfair as has been demonstrated in numerous examples. We need to address that unfairness in implementation suggestions.

For the next round, I would suggest that we, at a policy level, do not change 1 above. However, we should have plenty to say on the implementation of those policies because, given the level of disagreement/misunderstanding/positioning, we are not in agreement.

From listening to the discussion I think we have general consensus that

1. Geographic terms are important for the next round of applications for many reasons which are consistent with ICANN's Mission and Core Values.

2. That the expansion of "lists" of things is not an effective or useful or reliable way of determining what could be in or out beyond ISO 3166. Expansion of the application of national law into the international realm of the domain name system is neither effective or appropriate. We already have in place numerous elements which can be relied upon by applications and evaluators to fairly and predictably "treat" applications for TLD labels that may have geographic significance.

3. We agree that governments may be concerned with geographic terms but they do not own them or control or have a right of veto over an application. Governments are legitimate applicants for geographic terms. They are also legitimate objectors, like any one else, to applications.

Looking forward to hearing other views but I hope that we, finally, get rid of the "non-objection" artifact which can be capricious (if a government changes), subjective (because we haven't successfully articulated what non-objection looks like on a consistent basis), and it is much easier to either support something or object to it (using clearly set out guidelines).

Best wishes.

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.williams@auda.org.au <liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au><http://www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au%3e%3chttp:/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 7 May 2018, at 9:24 am, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto: mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e>> wrote:

I want to thank Alexander for so ably expressing a view that I can really resonate with. Cities are as unique and culturally relevant as countries -- many of them have been around longer than the countries they now reside in (Istanbul). Would it be possible to create a list of cities that are large enough that their names should be treated as reserved for the use of the people of that city to identify themselves just as countries do through ccTLD's? Could we set the conditions that would lead to such a list? Inevitably, some cities would be excluded and seek inclusion. But we have to start somewhere.

Marita Moll

On 5/5/2018 1:41 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:

Robin,

I think you and I share a certain "distain" for regulation exercised through "Governments". You write:

"It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis."

You and Greg are seemingly working off the assumption that somebody wants to help GOVERNMENTS to "protect" their territories in the DNS. But why don't you and Greg ever think about THE PEOPLE? I honestly couldn't care less about Governments - but I do care very much and very passionate about PEOPLE. And we need to make sure that the constituents of a city are looped into the decision what happens to their city name in the DNS. In the 2012 AGB this was facilitated by CITY Governments (NOT national Governments). Forget for a moment about "Governments" - and root for THE PEOPLE: How to protect THEM? NOT from "misrepresentation" - but from the ability to identify themselves through city gTLD domain names (see the equivalent via ccTLDs).

Hence my proposal to REQUIRE a "community priority application" if the string is identical to a ("sizeable") city: I want that THE PEOPLE in a city are INVOLVED. Not enough to just go to the major, promise 85% of (diluted) "profits" - and then blanket the space with hundreds of non-managed city gTLDs applied for to "just make big bucks"; instead of having locally managed and promoted CITY initiatives that THRIVE!

Thanks,

Alexander.berlin

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Robin Gross

Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 7:20 PM

To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>< mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>

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 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>

...

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

On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailt o:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e>> wrote:

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.

I think Greg's suggestion to focus on intended use is a very helpful suggestion for our work. It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis. We don't want to encourage a misrepresentation, but we also are obligated to recognize competing legitimate interests to the same term and in cases where there is no misrepresentation connected with the intended use of TLD with geographic meaning, those applicants should be allowed to go forward, unless they violate international law on some other ground.

Thanks,

Robin

On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailt o:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e>> wrote:

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<m ailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e>> 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<mail to:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> <liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e>>

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><mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e>

...

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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto: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/> <liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3ewww.auda.org.au%3chttp://www.auda.org.au%3e%3chttp://www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp://www.auda.org...>

...

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<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> <mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e>> 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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/> <http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e>

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:32 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<m ailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@ bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e>> 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>> <mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e>

...

Datum: 3. Mai 2018 um 19:26:08 MESZ

An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<m ailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@ bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e>

...

Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailt o:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail. com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> <gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e>>, mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto: mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e>> <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto: mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> <mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e>>, 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> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e>> <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>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e>

...

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/><http://France.com<http://france.com/> <http://france.com/%3e%3chttp:/France.com%3chttp:/france.com/%3e>>.

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087

http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/><http://rodenbaugh.com/> <http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e>

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:19 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<m ailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e>> 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@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto: mike@rodenbaugh.com>>> <mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3e>

...

Datum: 3. Mai 2018 um 19:06:27 MESZ

An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<m ailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e>

...

Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailt o:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail. com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com< mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> <gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3e>>, 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.inter.net><mailto: mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> <mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e>> <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.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: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>> <mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e,gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e>> <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:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>

...

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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/> <http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e>

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<m ailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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@rodenbaugh.com< mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com< mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com< mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com< mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com< mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com< mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com< mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>>> <mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3e%3e> ]

Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2018 09:49

An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<m ailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3e>

...

Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailt o:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail. com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com< mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail. com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com< mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail. com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>> <gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3e%3e>>; 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.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.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.inter.net>>>>;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: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:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org< mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> <mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e;gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>

...

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<; http://city.com/><http://city.com/>> <http://city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3e%3chttp:/city.com%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3e>> 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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/> <http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e>

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:28 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<m ailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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-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@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@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@icann.org><mailto: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld- wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3e>] 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<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: 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.inter.net><mailto: mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>> <mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e>

...

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: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:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3e>

...

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<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: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.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto: mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>> <mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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@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@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@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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@ icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mai lto:alexander@schubert.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>><mailto:alexander@schubert. berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin< mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>> <alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3e%3e>

...

Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 5:16 PM

To: 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: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:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org< mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>

...

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-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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@ icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>] 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><mailto: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<mailto:dave@davecake.net><mailto:dave@ davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net>>> <dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e>

...

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: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:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>

...

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><mailto: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<mailto:dave@ davecake.net><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net>>>> <dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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<mail to: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.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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz. williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>>>> <liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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.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.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.williams@auda.org.au<mailto: liz.williams@auda.org.au>>> <liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3e>> 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/>><http://www.auda.org.au/ <http://www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org....>

...

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: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: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>>> <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>

...

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: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: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>>> <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>

...

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: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: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>>> <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>

...

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: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: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>>> <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>

...

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: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: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>>> <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>

...

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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org< mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e>

...

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 <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 <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 <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 <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

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------

**************************************************

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway

**************************************************

_______________________________________________

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

Timo. _"To deal with the risk of "greedy governments" naming their cities after famous corporations just to have that cool TLD - maybe the basis to decide who gets the delegation should be historical data - which one was established first - city or the company/organisation/trademark. "_ I couldn't agree more!!! I further agree with your that the task of this WT-5 is about the people who are going to use it. We are not here to discuss the trademark or brand categories. Even the D.O.C. version of a geographical area is subject to a more or less democratic definition of all wine growers of that region and a whole set of publicly regulations. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQENBFqh7xwBCAC7PBUUek72U8teLrAieWI+JBo/nz0rQObzKgzGNWm2bb+i90mD roNsrvwDJiGOsB/VAhJy6ilIhs++QrxhVEzMz6oKJa8ANaNNvnK2Z8heYm1aC97E qY6y1z853b6F3XrN8262dor9NZEqaK28NVwLsFTfkGKhb4f3rJlCDmhwxt5VHhBQ MHKGxyutq0fyJpG6QpoAoRLaYXrq+xjXARhN9JBjeRRzbjnBbWt7+lRdCrZdOxfD ivRut9F2zMJq8RmeI5goTcq03IRLtKf41A6Np5K//HLe7GlHWH9g4pSKF+UB+EMe S506TxI0dVbyT3jlTnhhfNA/bpQXHcdCZ5EhABEBAAG0F2Nhcmxvc3JhdWxAZ3V0 aWVycmV6LnNliQEcBBABAgAGBQJaoe8cAAoJEOkK/VKjr2tvztgH/1zInwNszd4w 21UilxVmXX2J1SPZG6xXwbwU5BukIm7iBVYwxxPlIAZdJbG0/QynK2oWU1e1Zjed vBemfJtjOn2yRWo3P13PUV/2/trHWgUk5bA3eIUbWDW5fQRLW+TaHC7TuRKgRaJC NgdBItEniQz7DakGzld3PWmsTvIWd4N/fqzATD3DOZmONF52lyVuAEvKoF4rMRTR emvCrL66xEu19u9+Urk7R+DQuFQMNuX0MqC6/vIsmXYZPH7jnV6ZDyzb0BUnjYcx 6MH/YwJx29yjA4iN1NpwCpy1hc+YP1oavz2t+6isM6wB0mXlAazw2d83zwypsH6C 8xgjuRFm9xQ= =RX04 -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- El 2018-05-07 09:02, Timo Võhmar escribió:

Thank you Jorge for your tireless effort in this discussion. I do strongly support your points and points of few others here and appreciate the summary very much. I would just like to add my own angle on the matter. I strongly believe that interests of communities must come before corporate ones - internet is for people. So naming your company after a famous jungle or well known river or country, city or any other geographic term should not give any special rights to that name. Likewise registering a trademark Fabulous Estonia should not, and to my understanding does not give any special privileges toward terms Fabulous nor Estonia separately. I do think that countries, cities should have priority to established names because these usually represent larger communities and wider variety of interests.

To solve the question of Amsterdam, Athens etc I think Alexander has pointed out a good approach - sharing, if the communities of the cities have common interest in use of the TLD. Lets think how to facilitate and support it from the ICANNs side.

To deal with the risk of "greedy governments" naming their cities after famous corporations just to have that cool TLD - maybe the basis to decide who gets the delegation should be historical data - which one was established first - city or the company/organisation/trademark.

When it comes to the letter of non-objection - until we have not come up with better solution I do not see the way to drop it. I personally prefer letter of support.

Best Regards,

Timo Võhmar

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:01 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

...

Dear Paul

The requirement is already established in the 2012 AGB for good reason:

„ In the event that there is more than one

relevant government or public authority for the applied-for

gTLD string, the applicant must provide documentation of

support or non-objection from all the relevant governments

or public authorities. It is anticipated that this may apply to

the case of a sub-national place name."

In your ideas you forget many things, (1) that city governments are not aware of ICANN; (2) that we are not talking about auctions here; (3) that the interest represented by the cities in their names is of a general, public nature, linked to their political, economic, social etc. responsibilities vis-à-vis the denomination of their city.

Lucerne the city is not just a business or a company that happens to use the cities name as part of its commercial identification for specific products and services. Lucerne is a political entity, with quite a long history, a reputation, and a responsibility to protect the interests of its citizenship, which include their identity and their name as a political community. This may be difficult to understand for you, but is reflected in local law in Switzerland in different manners. A local law that ICANN would need to respect as it is applicable.

Best

Jorge

VON: Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com] GESENDET: Montag, 7. Mai 2018 15:47 AN: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; annebeth.lange@norid.no; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org BETREFF: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

If your proposal really is that every city in the world that has Athens in its name must sign off on who gets Athens or that the city of Sandwich MA (as small but pleasant place BTW) can stop the delegation of Sandwich, I disagree.

My feasible solution is simple - nobody gets priority. When/If the .sandwich TLD is offered up, everyone should get notice of that fact. We might even send as special invitatation to Sandwich MA and Sandwich, UK (and any other Sandwichs out there) all of who can, if they choose, submit applications. The one that meets the criteria best, gets the TLD, just like in any other auction.

Works quite well. And if the .Sandwich folks run afoul of local Sandwich law in the UK, they'll have to deal with it in the UK. Your proposal that "it is up to the parties" to get the best result is exactly right. The problem is that you would give Lucerne a veto power. Everyone who studies economics knows that this sort of priority causes rent-seeking, distorts markets and is economically counter-productive. I understand why Lucerne wants to export its rights globally. I would too in their position. But recognizing local law applied locally is not the same as giving global effect to Swiss law.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739

FROM: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> SENT: Monday, May 7, 2018 9:40 AM TO: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; annebeth.lange@norid.no; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org SUBJECT: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Dear Paul

Thanks for dropping that „international law" „requirement". It certainly would be useful if you also considered the importance of the Bylaws provision that ICANN has to act in conformity with applicable local law. You may not like that, but it is a fact of the framework we work with.

Apart from that, as far as I know this discussion about "letter of non-objection" is about obtaining a non-objection from the relevant public authorities. If there are multiple cities with the very same name, from all of them equally, as is provided for in the AGB.

Obtaining the letter of non-objection is a requirement for the application to go forward, but does not give you a "right" to the TLD - that will depend on complying with all the other requirements and going through all the process.

And obtaining such a letter is open to any interested applicants, be it brand owners with interests on trademarks which may coincide with that city name, be it communities, be it private business, etc.

It is up to the parties to come up with the best agreement in their shared interest.

I would appreciate that you would propose constructive and feasible solutions that would respect the interests and rights of cities in their names. Just ignoring such interests and rights is the best recipe for protracted conflicts between applicants and relevant public authorities, which is something we have seen happening in some applications regarding terms with geographic significance not falling under the "non-objection" rule.

Best regards

Jorge

VON: Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com] GESENDET: Montag, 7. Mai 2018 15:24 AN: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; annebeth.lange@norid.no; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org BETREFF: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

No I am calling for those, like you, who are seeking to take priority over other people to justify that. So far all you have offered is the anodyne view that "cities have history." That is, to my mind, insufficient (and also inaccurate, but that is another matter). If the multistakeholder model is to mean anything it is to mean working of a set of standards that are of general applicability - not the rule of the powerful.

So, if we are just "voting" my vote is that city names are not to be given priority. To many of them are multiplicious (see, e.g. Athens - who gets that one); too many have become part of common useage (e.g. Sandwich) and too many of them are just subterfuges for protectionism.

Until you can identify a neutral principle that works from behind the Rawlsian veil of ignorance, all you are doing is asserting "I should win because my view of the importance of city names is a higher value than your view of intellectual property."

Sorry, that's not persuasive. Show me a rule or a policy that existed before this debate began and I'll consider it.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739

FROM: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> SENT: Monday, May 7, 2018 8:53 AM TO: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; annebeth.lange@norid.no; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org SUBJECT: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Dear Paul

Your requirement starts from an erroneous assumption, i.e. that we need international law for our policy options.

As said before, we are in ICANN do develop policy in a multistakeholder fashion, with the global public interest as ultimate goal. Pursuant to the Bylaws, international law and applicable local laws have to be respected in that journey, but they do not determine the full body of policy - otherwise we would not be here...

Or are you calling for an international body to take over the tasks of the multistakeholder model which is ICANN?

Best

Jorge

VON: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] IM AUFTRAG VON Paul Rosenzweig GESENDET: Montag, 7. Mai 2018 14:44 AN: 'Annebeth Lange' <annebeth.lange@norid.no>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org BETREFF: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

So here is a specific proposal: "No geo name gets priority unless it is a name recognized in international law or by some international body of standard setting. No geo name gets priority if it is held by more than one geo location."

I have asked, twice, for those supporting the city names to identify either international law or an international standard for defining which ones are to be given priority. Supporters have yet to point to any such definitive, normative list. Absent such a list, prioritizing a geo name is just picking a winner.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739

FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> ON BEHALF OF Annebeth Lange SENT: Monday, May 7, 2018 5:55 AM TO: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Dear colleagues,

As one of the co-chairs in WT5 I have followed the discussion but kept myself in the background to see where this discussion leads. As co-chairs we have to be neutral, even if the 4 of us represent different SO/AC groups and, I am sure, have different views. But we all want to get a solution that is predictable and as close to full consensus as possible.

However, I would like to remind members to only add new points rather than reiterating the same points already raised and to focus on a specific task or topic at hand. It is not easy for those of us not having English as our mother tongue formulate our opinions and we do not have the power of argumentation that those with English as native language have. This should also be thought of. I am afraid there are members in WT5 that is totally overwhelmed by this and do not feel it within their power

to go against those strong and competent comments. Still, I encourage everyone interested in this issue to raise their voice.

It is obvious that the differences are huge between the SO/ACs on this issue. And I do feel that the conversation is going in circles here. It would be good if members submit specific proposals that take all views into consideration.

I would like to remind you and highlight some resources as starting points for discussion regarding proposals -- there are a number of proposals put forward in the 2017 webinars that might be helpful to draw on:

https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2017-04-25+Geographic+Names+Webina... [1]

In addition, the facilitators of the geo names sessions at ICANN59 did a very good job of summarizing some of the underlying interests and possible paths forward, based on interviews with different stakeholders and input through discussions at the meeting (see slides):

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=66081677 [2]

Some of this might provide inspiration in the discussion on ways to create greater structure.

Thanks to everyone for your eagerness and dedication to discuss this issue. As a last point, I would like to remind you that also the AGB 2012 rules on cities were a compromise, that the multistakeholders used long time to find and that have worked quite well even if not everybody got what they wanted.

Kind regards,

Annebeth

FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Mazzone, Giacomo" <mazzone@ebu.ch> DATE: Monday, 7 May 2018 at 09:54 TO: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> CC: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Dear Jorge,

This seems to me a more balanced summary of the discussion.

There are some points that could be even more motivated (I see ,for instance, that you don't mentioned the cases from Italy that I mentioned in my mails, like "Capri" , where international brands company where denied to use these names in the Court without previous agreement of the local authorities) but we can improve the wording later.

Thank you Jorge for this work.

Giacomo

-----Original Message-----

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch

Sent: lundi 7 mai 2018 07:43

To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch

Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org

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

Dear all,

Here is another summary of the issue, which could help co-leads in preparing their third party-recap:

- TLDs are unique. If a string composed by one name as such is delegated others with an interest on that name will be prevented from using that name.

- Distinctions based on intended use is therefore not helpful. "Intended use" limitations also imply impractical enforcement challenges that would be posed by any circumventing on intended use by third parties, such as registrants...

- city names are geographic terms that have political, historical, economic (sometimes religious) and social connotations for the populations, communities affected.

- city governments have responsibilities over their names as their primary identifiers in social, national, political and economic interactions and as identification of their peoples.

- Their responsibilities are laid down in different public policy and law instruments (in Switzerland we have seen that they, inter alia, have rights on their names under civil right). The city name is subject to general/public interests representent by that city government. City governments act according to the laws of the countries they are established and accountable under them.

- City names as such are not subject to rights by private parties. A monopolization of a city name by private parties is forbidden under laws pertaining to business names and trademark registration in a number of jurisdictions. Trademark interests to city names refer normally to composed names ("lucerne foods") and are limited to specific products and services in certain jurisdictions, in order to avoid consumer confusion. They protect against others using that name in that category of products or services who generate confusion in the consumer. (please refer to Nicks Email on this).

- Applicants for a string (eg of a city name) have a specific and direct interest to their application, are interested in certainty and in not receiving objections when they are well into an application process. Such applicants are aware of ICANN and its procedures, as this is a prerequisite for obtaining the delegation.

- Applicants will usually be aware that the string they wish to apply for is also a city name. If not they can do a search and identify potential cities with that name. ICANN and GAC Members can help identifying relevant public authorities (AGB 2012).

- City Governments (hundreds of thousands worlwide) do not know ICANN. They cannot be expected to monitor its proceedings and actively look for their city names being applied for and to object within deadlines they ignore.

- Non-objection-letters worked generally well under the 2012 AGB, in 60+ cases.

- Only few cases (1-2) have been referred to where potential issues with the "non-objection" as such were identified.

- Further study of such cases could be warranted, considering evidence from the parties involved, i.e. both applicants and relevant public authorities. This analysis could warrant identifying improvements to the non-objection-letter. At the same time, the fact that no agreement was found between applicants and city governments may have different, legitimate causes.

- Non-objection letters fairly puts the burden on the party with specific and direct interests in the application to reach out to the relevant public authorities of the corresponding city. It gets those specific interest-holders on a table with the representatives of the public interest of the people living in the city with that name. This system allows for different solutions to be worked out between the parties, which may go from "laisser-faire", to participation in governance of the string, to joint initiatives etc.

- If more than one city has the same name, all benefit equally from the nom-objection instrument, as all have a say.

- Potential issues to be further analysed:

a) cases where issues arose with the non-objection letter as such. Improvements to the non-objection letter system.

b) ...

Hope this is helpful

best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>

Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:49:39 MESZ

An: liz.williams@auda.org.au <liz.williams@auda.org.au>

Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>

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

Dear Liz

Thanks, but one has to reflect all views when you try such a thing. You just summarize the views of those people with your views. And you conclude it with your initial statement (100 messages ago) on the non-objection-letter, without having considered the arguments of others... that, you may concede, is not quite objective...

To be short: we have four very capable co-leads and staff, let's them do their job and produce a third-party summary of the discussion so far.

Best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au>

Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:43:24 MESZ

An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>

Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>

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

Jorge

If you want to do a better job of summarising things as we track along, go right ahead. That task is always open to anyone on the group, the co-chairs and ICANN staff supporting the work. I really don't give a fig who does it.it [3] just needs to be done so that we are moving along diligently. Otherwise we end up in ridiculous circles of oneupmanship which I don't care for.

I've done more than enough in my time of trying to read rough consensus, considering differing points of view and trying to come up with best practice that I really don't mind who does what.

It all needs to be fed back to the bigger SubPro group and then to the GNSO and then to the Board and then to public comment so we are MILES from any final position.

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> www.auda.org.au [4]<http://www.auda.org.au [4]>

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 7 May 2018, at 2:34 pm, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

Dear Liz

I guess that you mean that this is a good summary of the opinions expressed by some, but which do not represent those expressed by many others (e.g. Alexander, Kathrin, Nick, Giacomo, Marita, Yrjo, Nouar, Kavouss... and I).

Let's leave these summaries to the co-leads. Otherwise we will have many different summaries.

best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>>

Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 02:00:49 MESZ

An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>

Cc: gnso-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>>

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

Hello everyone

I am really pleased that this thread has yielded such a diverse set of perspectives. I wanted to, if we could, try to wrap up some things that we may or may not have consensus on so that we can discuss that on the next call. That might help the co-chairs and staff?

1. We want to continue to have clear, objective and fact based policies associated with the assessment of all TLD applications. This, of course, includes geographic terms.

2. We need to have clear application evaluation procedures that ensure that the ICANN Board, GAC, applicants understand exactly what their respective roles are. In a multi-stakeholder environment, no one has primacy over another. The GAC is very different from national governments and can only provide collective consensus advice to the ICANN Board. The GAC has no operational role. However, individual member governments may have different opinions about specific applications for TLDs.

These two things are no different from what we had hoped would happen in previous rounds. Where we have diverged is that the role of the Board and GAC and the ICANN organisation dramatically changed the implementation of the evaluation process for many applicants. Interference in the evaluation process was problematic and unfair as has been demonstrated in numerous examples. We need to address that unfairness in implementation suggestions.

For the next round, I would suggest that we, at a policy level, do not change 1 above. However, we should have plenty to say on the implementation of those policies because, given the level of disagreement/misunderstanding/positioning, we are not in agreement.

From listening to the discussion I think we have general consensus that

1. Geographic terms are important for the next round of applications for many reasons which are consistent with ICANN's Mission and Core Values.

2. That the expansion of "lists" of things is not an effective or useful or reliable way of determining what could be in or out beyond ISO 3166. Expansion of the application of national law into the international realm of the domain name system is neither effective or appropriate. We already have in place numerous elements which can be relied upon by applications and evaluators to fairly and predictably "treat" applications for TLD labels that may have geographic significance.

3. We agree that governments may be concerned with geographic terms but they do not own them or control or have a right of veto over an application. Governments are legitimate applicants for geographic terms. They are also legitimate objectors, like any one else, to applications.

Looking forward to hearing other views but I hope that we, finally, get rid of the "non-objection" artifact which can be capricious (if a government changes), subjective (because we haven't successfully articulated what non-objection looks like on a consistent basis), and it is much easier to either support something or object to it (using clearly set out guidelines).

Best wishes.

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.williams@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au [4]<http://www.auda.org.au><http://www.auda.org.au [5]>

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 7 May 2018, at 9:24 am, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote:

I want to thank Alexander for so ably expressing a view that I can really resonate with. Cities are as unique and culturally relevant as countries -- many of them have been around longer than the countries they now reside in (Istanbul). Would it be possible to create a list of cities that are large enough that their names should be treated as reserved for the use of the people of that city to identify themselves just as countries do through ccTLD's? Could we set the conditions that would lead to such a list? Inevitably, some cities would be excluded and seek inclusion. But we have to start somewhere.

Marita Moll

On 5/5/2018 1:41 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:

Robin,

I think you and I share a certain "distain" for regulation exercised through "Governments". You write:

"It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis."

You and Greg are seemingly working off the assumption that somebody wants to help GOVERNMENTS to "protect" their territories in the DNS. But why don't you and Greg ever think about THE PEOPLE? I honestly couldn't care less about Governments - but I do care very much and very passionate about PEOPLE. And we need to make sure that the constituents of a city are looped into the decision what happens to their city name in the DNS. In the 2012 AGB this was facilitated by CITY Governments (NOT national Governments). Forget for a moment about "Governments" - and root for THE PEOPLE: How to protect THEM? NOT from "misrepresentation" - but from the ability to identify themselves through city gTLD domain names (see the equivalent via ccTLDs).

Hence my proposal to REQUIRE a "community priority application" if the string is identical to a ("sizeable") city: I want that THE PEOPLE in a city are INVOLVED. Not enough to just go to the major, promise 85% of (diluted) "profits" - and then blanket the space with hundreds of non-managed city gTLDs applied for to "just make big bucks"; instead of having locally managed and promoted CITY initiatives that THRIVE!

Thanks,

Alexander.berlin

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross

Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 7:20 PM

To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>

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>

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

On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:

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.

I think Greg's suggestion to focus on intended use is a very helpful suggestion for our work. It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis. We don't want to encourage a misrepresentation, but we also are obligated to recognize competing legitimate interests to the same term and in cases where there is no misrepresentation connected with the intended use of TLD with geographic meaning, those applicants should be allowed to go forward, unless they violate international law on some other ground.

Thanks,

Robin

On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:

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><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><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><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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto: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/>>

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<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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/> [6]

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:32 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>

Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>, 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<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>, 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>> <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/><http://France.com<http://france.com/> [7]>.

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087

http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/><http://rodenbaugh.com/> [6]

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:19 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<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@rodenbaugh.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>>

Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>, 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.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<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>>>>,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: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:gnso-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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/> [6]

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto: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@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@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:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>>; 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.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.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.inter.net>>>>;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: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:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-new gtld-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 [8]<http://city.com/><http://city.com/><http://city.com<http://city.com/><http://city.com/>><http://city.com<http://city.com/><http://city.com/>> [9]> 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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/> [6]

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:28 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto: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-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@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@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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<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<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: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.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@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: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: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

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<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: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.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@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@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@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@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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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@schubert.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<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: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: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>>>>

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-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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@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><mailto: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<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: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:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-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><mailto: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<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.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.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.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.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.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.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>>>> www.auda.org.au [4]<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/>><http://www.auda.org.au/ [10]>

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: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: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>>>>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [11]

_______________________________________________

Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list

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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>>>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [11]

_______________________________________________

Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list

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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>>>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [11]

_______________________________________________

Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list

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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>>>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [11]

_______________________________________________

Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list

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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>>>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [11]

_______________________________________________

Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list

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>>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [11]

_______________________________________________

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 [11]

_______________________________________________

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 [11]

_______________________________________________ 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 [11]

_______________________________________________

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 [11]

_______________________________________________

Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list

Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [11]

_______________________________________________

Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list

Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [11]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**************************************************

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway

**************************************************

_______________________________________________

Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list

Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [11]

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [11]

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

Links: ------ [1] https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2017-04-25+Geographic+Names+Webina... [2] https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=66081677 [3] http://it.it [4] http://www.auda.org.au [5] http://www.auda.org.au%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au [6] http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e [7] http://france.com/%3e%3chttp:/France.com%3chttp:/france.com/%3e [8] http://city.com [9] http://city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com%3chttp:/city.com/%... [10] http://www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org.... [11] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Alexander, I like your practical idea in principle {population size cut-off}, but why not thinking about "relative" size? Why not the 10 largest cities in a country? Or the 3 largest cities in a sub-national region? Why not give a chance to small countries and smaller populations? _Please think about about poor LUZERN! They didn't join the Swiss confederation right away in 1315. But after a few year they did 1332. Just because Luzern is a small canton and Luzern city is much smaller than quite a few Swiss cities I would hate if your cut-off rules would leave Luzern out. I actually don't care much about Luzern, because Lausanne is my city of citizenship and wouldn't like people across the world "confusing" Lucerne Food with Lausanne, but since Lausanne joined the confederation much later in 1536 and I used Luzern because somebody suggested earlier to use it for a food company not even based in Siwtzerland (a notational insult to Nestle by the way)._ Do you recognize how absurd this City Sub-Sub-Track is getting?????????? Frankly I think the CITY idea is getting us off-track badly. --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQENBFqh7xwBCAC7PBUUek72U8teLrAieWI+JBo/nz0rQObzKgzGNWm2bb+i90mD roNsrvwDJiGOsB/VAhJy6ilIhs++QrxhVEzMz6oKJa8ANaNNvnK2Z8heYm1aC97E qY6y1z853b6F3XrN8262dor9NZEqaK28NVwLsFTfkGKhb4f3rJlCDmhwxt5VHhBQ MHKGxyutq0fyJpG6QpoAoRLaYXrq+xjXARhN9JBjeRRzbjnBbWt7+lRdCrZdOxfD ivRut9F2zMJq8RmeI5goTcq03IRLtKf41A6Np5K//HLe7GlHWH9g4pSKF+UB+EMe S506TxI0dVbyT3jlTnhhfNA/bpQXHcdCZ5EhABEBAAG0F2Nhcmxvc3JhdWxAZ3V0 aWVycmV6LnNliQEcBBABAgAGBQJaoe8cAAoJEOkK/VKjr2tvztgH/1zInwNszd4w 21UilxVmXX2J1SPZG6xXwbwU5BukIm7iBVYwxxPlIAZdJbG0/QynK2oWU1e1Zjed vBemfJtjOn2yRWo3P13PUV/2/trHWgUk5bA3eIUbWDW5fQRLW+TaHC7TuRKgRaJC NgdBItEniQz7DakGzld3PWmsTvIWd4N/fqzATD3DOZmONF52lyVuAEvKoF4rMRTR emvCrL66xEu19u9+Urk7R+DQuFQMNuX0MqC6/vIsmXYZPH7jnV6ZDyzb0BUnjYcx 6MH/YwJx29yjA4iN1NpwCpy1hc+YP1oavz2t+6isM6wB0mXlAazw2d83zwypsH6C 8xgjuRFm9xQ= =RX04 -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- El 2018-05-07 12:25, Alexander Schubert escribió:

Paul,

I think there is already a valid solution on the table:

A population size cut-off: A city gets only "priority" if it has more than "X" inhabitants. And ONLY all cities with identical name and more than "X" inhabitants have to provide a letter! Easy solution - and MUCH better than depriving ALL inhabitants of ALL cities of their ability to identify themselves via their city gTLD: one that is approved by the city and therefore likely an effort by the constituents of said city: and not some money-hungry "gTLD investors" which want to flood the market with THOUSANDS of uniform gTLDs as profit centers and cash cows.

Thanks,

Alexander.berlin

FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Paul Rosenzweig SENT: Monday, May 07, 2018 4:47 PM TO: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; annebeth.lange@norid.no; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

If your proposal really is that every city in the world that has Athens in its name must sign off on who gets Athens or that the city of Sandwich MA (as small but pleasant place BTW) can stop the delegation of Sandwich, I disagree.

My feasible solution is simple - nobody gets priority. When/If the .sandwich TLD is offered up, everyone should get notice of that fact. We might even send as special invitatation to Sandwich MA and Sandwich, UK (and any other Sandwichs out there) all of who can, if they choose, submit applications. The one that meets the criteria best, gets the TLD, just like in any other auction.

Works quite well. And if the .Sandwich folks run afoul of local Sandwich law in the UK, they'll have to deal with it in the UK. Your proposal that "it is up to the parties" to get the best result is exactly right. The problem is that you would give Lucerne a veto power. Everyone who studies economics knows that this sort of priority causes rent-seeking, distorts markets and is economically counter-productive. I understand why Lucerne wants to export its rights globally. I would too in their position. But recognizing local law applied locally is not the same as giving global effect to Swiss law.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739

FROM: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> SENT: Monday, May 7, 2018 9:40 AM TO: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; annebeth.lange@norid.no; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org SUBJECT: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Dear Paul

Thanks for dropping that „international law" „requirement". It certainly would be useful if you also considered the importance of the Bylaws provision that ICANN has to act in conformity with applicable local law. You may not like that, but it is a fact of the framework we work with.

Apart from that, as far as I know this discussion about "letter of non-objection" is about obtaining a non-objection from the relevant public authorities. If there are multiple cities with the very same name, from all of them equally, as is provided for in the AGB.

Obtaining the letter of non-objection is a requirement for the application to go forward, but does not give you a "right" to the TLD - that will depend on complying with all the other requirements and going through all the process.

And obtaining such a letter is open to any interested applicants, be it brand owners with interests on trademarks which may coincide with that city name, be it communities, be it private business, etc.

It is up to the parties to come up with the best agreement in their shared interest.

I would appreciate that you would propose constructive and feasible solutions that would respect the interests and rights of cities in their names. Just ignoring such interests and rights is the best recipe for protracted conflicts between applicants and relevant public authorities, which is something we have seen happening in some applications regarding terms with geographic significance not falling under the "non-objection" rule.

Best regards

Jorge

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

Hi all, Just for reference, here's the link to the comments of the Council European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) to AGB v.3 (2009). http://www.ccre.org/img/uploads/piecesjointe/filename/CEMR_response_gtld_EN.... CEMR Comments - CCRE<http://www.ccre.org/img/uploads/piecesjointe/filename/CEMR_response_gtld_EN....> www.ccre.org COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN MUNICIPALITIES AND REGIONS CONSEIL DES COMMUNES ET REGIONS D’EUROPE CEMR Comments on ICANN’s draft version 3 of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook ... I'm grateful to Tommi Karttaavi of the Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities, who actually drafted these comments, for digging up this bit of institutional memory. Best, Yrjö ________________________________ From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 4:07 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Just bringing us back to this possible solution -- we don't have to reinvent the wheel. We could set the size of a city at 1 million or more residents within the metropolitan area as identified by the U.N. -- i.e. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/urbanizati... I think anything this large has some inherent rights that a shoe company (or any other commercial venture) would not have. Cities satisfying this condition would be on a priority list. This would cover a large swath of the problems re city gTLDs. For the rest, I agree with Alexander's points below. Marita Moll On 5/7/2018 2:25 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Paul, I think there is already a valid solution on the table: A population size cut-off: A city gets only “priority” if it has more than “X” inhabitants. And ONLY all cities with identical name and more than “X” inhabitants have to provide a letter! Easy solution – and MUCH better than depriving ALL inhabitants of ALL cities of their ability to identify themselves via their city gTLD: one that is approved by the city and therefore likely an effort by the constituents of said city: and not some money-hungry “gTLD investors” which want to flood the market with THOUSANDS of uniform gTLDs as profit centers and cash cows. Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Monday, May 07, 2018 4:47 PM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names If your proposal really is that every city in the world that has Athens in its name must sign off on who gets Athens or that the city of Sandwich MA (as small but pleasant place BTW) can stop the delegation of Sandwich, I disagree. My feasible solution is simple – nobody gets priority. When/If the .sandwich TLD is offered up, everyone should get notice of that fact. We might even send as special invitatation to Sandwich MA and Sandwich, UK (and any other Sandwichs out there) all of who can, if they choose, submit applications. The one that meets the criteria best, gets the TLD, just like in any other auction. Works quite well. And if the .Sandwich folks run afoul of local Sandwich law in the UK, they’ll have to deal with it in the UK. Your proposal that “it is up to the parties” to get the best result is exactly right. The problem is that you would give Lucerne a veto power. Everyone who studies economics knows that this sort of priority causes rent-seeking, distorts markets and is economically counter-productive. I understand why Lucerne wants to export its rights globally. I would too in their position. But recognizing local law applied locally is not the same as giving global effect to Swiss law. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 9:40 AM To: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Dear Paul Thanks for dropping that „international law“ „requirement”. It certainly would be useful if you also considered the importance of the Bylaws provision that ICANN has to act in conformity with applicable local law. You may not like that, but it is a fact of the framework we work with. Apart from that, as far as I know this discussion about “letter of non-objection” is about obtaining a non-objection from the relevant public authorities. If there are multiple cities with the very same name, from all of them equally, as is provided for in the AGB. Obtaining the letter of non-objection is a requirement for the application to go forward, but does not give you a “right” to the TLD – that will depend on complying with all the other requirements and going through all the process. And obtaining such a letter is open to any interested applicants, be it brand owners with interests on trademarks which may coincide with that city name, be it communities, be it private business, etc. It is up to the parties to come up with the best agreement in their shared interest. I would appreciate that you would propose constructive and feasible solutions that would respect the interests and rights of cities in their names. Just ignoring such interests and rights is the best recipe for protracted conflicts between applicants and relevant public authorities, which is something we have seen happening in some applications regarding terms with geographic significance not falling under the “non-objection” rule. Best regards Jorge _______________________________________________ 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

Thanks to Yrjo for sharing this info! Regarding the question of thresholds on size, I feel that before jumping into possible solutions we would first need to know where problems were identified in the 2012 AGB round, obtaining the views of both applicants and relevant public authorities - on an as factual basis as possible. Best regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Yrjö Länsipuro Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. Mai 2018 15:21 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Hi all, Just for reference, here's the link to the comments of the Council European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) to AGB v.3 (2009). http://www.ccre.org/img/uploads/piecesjointe/filename/CEMR_response_gtld_EN.... CEMR Comments - CCRE<http://www.ccre.org/img/uploads/piecesjointe/filename/CEMR_response_gtld_EN....> www.ccre.org<http://www.ccre.org> COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN MUNICIPALITIES AND REGIONS CONSEIL DES COMMUNES ET REGIONS D'EUROPE CEMR Comments on ICANN's draft version 3 of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook ... I'm grateful to Tommi Karttaavi of the Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities, who actually drafted these comments, for digging up this bit of institutional memory. Best, Yrjö ________________________________ From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 4:07 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Just bringing us back to this possible solution -- we don't have to reinvent the wheel. We could set the size of a city at 1 million or more residents within the metropolitan area as identified by the U.N. -- i.e. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/urbanizati... I think anything this large has some inherent rights that a shoe company (or any other commercial venture) would not have. Cities satisfying this condition would be on a priority list. This would cover a large swath of the problems re city gTLDs. For the rest, I agree with Alexander's points below. Marita Moll On 5/7/2018 2:25 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Paul, I think there is already a valid solution on the table: A population size cut-off: A city gets only "priority" if it has more than "X" inhabitants. And ONLY all cities with identical name and more than "X" inhabitants have to provide a letter! Easy solution - and MUCH better than depriving ALL inhabitants of ALL cities of their ability to identify themselves via their city gTLD: one that is approved by the city and therefore likely an effort by the constituents of said city: and not some money-hungry "gTLD investors" which want to flood the market with THOUSANDS of uniform gTLDs as profit centers and cash cows. Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Monday, May 07, 2018 4:47 PM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names If your proposal really is that every city in the world that has Athens in its name must sign off on who gets Athens or that the city of Sandwich MA (as small but pleasant place BTW) can stop the delegation of Sandwich, I disagree. My feasible solution is simple - nobody gets priority. When/If the .sandwich TLD is offered up, everyone should get notice of that fact. We might even send as special invitatation to Sandwich MA and Sandwich, UK (and any other Sandwichs out there) all of who can, if they choose, submit applications. The one that meets the criteria best, gets the TLD, just like in any other auction. Works quite well. And if the .Sandwich folks run afoul of local Sandwich law in the UK, they'll have to deal with it in the UK. Your proposal that "it is up to the parties" to get the best result is exactly right. The problem is that you would give Lucerne a veto power. Everyone who studies economics knows that this sort of priority causes rent-seeking, distorts markets and is economically counter-productive. I understand why Lucerne wants to export its rights globally. I would too in their position. But recognizing local law applied locally is not the same as giving global effect to Swiss law. Paul Paul Rosenzweig M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739 From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 9:40 AM To: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Dear Paul Thanks for dropping that "international law" "requirement". It certainly would be useful if you also considered the importance of the Bylaws provision that ICANN has to act in conformity with applicable local law. You may not like that, but it is a fact of the framework we work with. Apart from that, as far as I know this discussion about "letter of non-objection" is about obtaining a non-objection from the relevant public authorities. If there are multiple cities with the very same name, from all of them equally, as is provided for in the AGB. Obtaining the letter of non-objection is a requirement for the application to go forward, but does not give you a "right" to the TLD - that will depend on complying with all the other requirements and going through all the process. And obtaining such a letter is open to any interested applicants, be it brand owners with interests on trademarks which may coincide with that city name, be it communities, be it private business, etc. It is up to the parties to come up with the best agreement in their shared interest. I would appreciate that you would propose constructive and feasible solutions that would respect the interests and rights of cities in their names. Just ignoring such interests and rights is the best recipe for protracted conflicts between applicants and relevant public authorities, which is something we have seen happening in some applications regarding terms with geographic significance not falling under the "non-objection" rule. Best regards Jorge _______________________________________________ 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

Hi. I only suggested the 1M because there is already an official list -- and it is a pretty long list!  It is a starting point only. We would have to accommodate for smaller sizes, set further conditions for smaller cities -- a capital, a percentage of population of the country perhaps. To me, just getting the elephants out of the room makes the job more manageable. Marita On 5/8/2018 9:50 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:

Hi Marita,

Obviously (if we go the route of a cut-off size) we would have to get suggestions for the amount of inhabitants. A MILLION people city (even if measured by the metropolitan area) is in my mind WAY too big. This would be a quite short list – and leaves too many out in the rain. Living in the Baltics: a Million people is half Latvia or almost entire Estonia. No Baltic city would be protected – and I can rattle off at least 5 in Latvia alone that would not be happy about it. Or look at Switzerland: I am pretty sure that they will go for a NUMBER of city gTLDs over time – yet NONE of their cities has a million people! Not even NEAR.

I see no harm to set the cut-off size to an amount between 10k and 50k people. It is very unlikely that too many “brands” or “generic string” applications would be affected (they can still apply ; just need the letter) – and while weeding out the masses of smallish places it still provides ample protections to places with sizeable population. At 50k or below obviously we would talk about the “proper city” size – not the metropolitan area.

Thanks,

Alexander

*From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Marita Moll *Sent:* Tuesday, May 08, 2018 4:08 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Just bringing us back to this possible solution -- we don't have to reinvent the wheel. We could set the size of a city at 1 million or more residents within the metropolitan area as identified by the U.N.  -- i.e. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/urbanizati...

I think anything this large has some inherent rights that a shoe company (or any other commercial venture) would not have. Cities satisfying this condition would be on a priority list. This would cover a large swath of the problems re city gTLDs. For the rest, I agree with Alexander's points below.

Marita Moll

On 5/7/2018 2:25 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:

Paul,

I think there is already a valid solution on the table:

A population size cut-off: A city gets only “priority” if it has more than “X” inhabitants. And ONLY all cities with identical name and more than “X” inhabitants have to provide a letter! Easy solution – and MUCH better than depriving ALL inhabitants of ALL cities of their ability to identify themselves via their city gTLD: one that is approved by the city and therefore likely an effort by the constituents of said city: and not some money-hungry “gTLD investors” which want to flood the market with THOUSANDS of uniform gTLDs as profit centers and cash cows.

Thanks,

Alexander.berlin

*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul Rosenzweig *Sent:* Monday, May 07, 2018 4:47 PM *To:* Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

If your proposal really is that every city in the world that has Athens in its name must sign off on who gets Athens or that the city of Sandwich MA (as small but pleasant place BTW) can stop the delegation of Sandwich, I disagree.

My feasible solution is simple – nobody gets priority.  When/If the .sandwich TLD is offered up, everyone should get notice of that fact.  We might even send as special invitatation to Sandwich MA and Sandwich, UK (and any other Sandwichs out there) all of who can, if they choose, submit applications.  The one that meets the criteria best, gets the TLD, just like in any other auction.

Works quite well.  And if the .Sandwich folks run afoul of local Sandwich law in the UK, they’ll have to deal with it in the UK.  Your proposal that “it is up to the parties” to get the best result is exactly right.  The problem is that you would give Lucerne a veto power.  Everyone who studies economics knows that this sort of priority causes rent-seeking, distorts markets and is economically counter-productive.  I understand why Lucerne wants to export its rights globally.  I would too in their position.  But recognizing local law applied locally is not the same as giving global effect to Swiss law.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739

*From:* Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> *Sent:* Monday, May 7, 2018 9:40 AM *To:* paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Subject:* AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Dear Paul

Thanks for dropping that „international law“ „requirement”. It certainly would be useful if you also considered the importance of the Bylaws provision that ICANN has to act in conformity with applicable local law. You may not like that, but it is a fact of the framework we work with.

Apart from that, as far as I know this discussion about “letter of non-objection” is about obtaining a non-objection from the relevant public authorities. If there are multiple cities with the very same name, from all of them equally, as is provided for in the AGB.

Obtaining the letter of non-objection is a requirement for the application to go forward, but does not give you a “right” to the TLD – that will depend on complying with all the other requirements and going through all the process.

And obtaining such a letter is open to any interested applicants, be it brand owners with interests on trademarks which may coincide with that city name, be it communities, be it private business, etc.

It is up to the parties to come up with the best agreement in their shared interest.

I would appreciate that you would propose constructive and feasible solutions that would respect the interests and rights of cities in their names. Just ignoring such interests and rights is the best recipe for protracted conflicts between applicants and relevant public authorities, which is something we have seen happening in some applications regarding terms with geographic significance not falling under the “non-objection” rule.

Best regards

Jorge

_______________________________________________

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

My call on city names is that there should be no priority on who gets it first but an open one with a sub level that identifies its location. So as not to keep to one city but every relative same names get their spot. As at now we know that many countries don’t understand what ICANN org does. But i am partisan to when it comes to cities we find a technical solution to ensure we do not waste time over waging war on each other. As far a countries list this is already set by ISO and UN. That should work out. Cities are the challenge brands are also another challenge. We should find the solution that opens up to give an opportunity to all cities with same name and by extension it will give more to a business model that ICANN org can use. As of this point i am not sure that a legal view to cities will help. Cities with same names should also be identified against the relative country as well. That is how i view it. Picking a winner and allocate to only one city for me does not make sense since we can find same names over and over in different countries of the world. My two cents.

On May 7, 2018, at 16:43, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:

So here is a specific proposal: “No geo name gets priority unless it is a name recognized in international law or by some international body of standard setting. No geo name gets priority if it is held by more than one geo location.”

I have asked, twice, for those supporting the city names to identify either international law or an international standard for defining which ones are to be given priority. Supporters have yet to point to any such definitive, normative list. Absent such a list, prioritizing a geo name is just picking a winner.

Paul

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

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 5:55 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Dear colleagues,

As one of the co-chairs in WT5 I have followed the discussion but kept myself in the background to see where this discussion leads. As co-chairs we have to be neutral, even if the 4 of us represent different SO/AC groups and, I am sure, have different views. But we all want to get a solution that is predictable and as close to full consensus as possible.

However, I would like to remind members to only add new points rather than reiterating the same points already raised and to focus on a specific task or topic at hand. It is not easy for those of us not having English as our mother tongue formulate our opinions and we do not have the power of argumentation that those with English as native language have. This should also be thought of. I am afraid there are members in WT5 that is totally overwhelmed by this and do not feel it within their power to go against those strong and competent comments. Still, I encourage everyone interested in this issue to raise their voice.

It is obvious that the differences are huge between the SO/ACs on this issue. And I do feel that the conversation is going in circles here. It would be good if members submit specific proposals that take all views into consideration.

I would like to remind you and highlight some resources as starting points for discussion regarding proposals -- there are a number of proposals put forward in the 2017 webinars that might be helpful to draw on:

https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2017-04-25+Geographic+Names+Webina... <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2017-04-25+Geographic+Names+Webina...>

In addition, the facilitators of the geo names sessions at ICANN59 did a very good job of summarizing some of the underlying interests and possible paths forward, based on interviews with different stakeholders and input through discussions at the meeting (see slides):

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=66081677 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=66081677>

Some of this might provide inspiration in the discussion on ways to create greater structure.

Thanks to everyone for your eagerness and dedication to discuss this issue. As a last point, I would like to remind you that also the AGB 2012 rules on cities were a compromise, that the multistakeholders used long time to find and that have worked quite well even if not everybody got what they wanted.

Kind regards,

Annebeth

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Mazzone, Giacomo" <mazzone@ebu.ch <mailto:mazzone@ebu.ch>> Date: Monday, 7 May 2018 at 09:54 To: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <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>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Dear Jorge, This seems to me a more balanced summary of the discussion. There are some points that could be even more motivated (I see ,for instance, that you don't mentioned the cases from Italy that I mentioned in my mails, like "Capri" , where international brands company where denied to use these names in the Court without previous agreement of the local authorities) but we can improve the wording later.

Thank you Jorge for this work. Giacomo

-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: lundi 7 mai 2018 07:43 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

Dear all,

Here is another summary of the issue, which could help co-leads in preparing their third party-recap:

- TLDs are unique. If a string composed by one name as such is delegated others with an interest on that name will be prevented from using that name.

- Distinctions based on intended use is therefore not helpful. "Intended use" limitations also imply impractical enforcement challenges that would be posed by any circumventing on intended use by third parties, such as registrants...

- city names are geographic terms that have political, historical, economic (sometimes religious) and social connotations for the populations, communities affected.

- city governments have responsibilities over their names as their primary identifiers in social, national, political and economic interactions and as identification of their peoples.

- Their responsibilities are laid down in different public policy and law instruments (in Switzerland we have seen that they, inter alia, have rights on their names under civil right). The city name is subject to general/public interests representent by that city government. City governments act according to the laws of the countries they are established and accountable under them.

- City names as such are not subject to rights by private parties. A monopolization of a city name by private parties is forbidden under laws pertaining to business names and trademark registration in a number of jurisdictions. Trademark interests to city names refer normally to composed names ("lucerne foods") and are limited to specific products and services in certain jurisdictions, in order to avoid consumer confusion. They protect against others using that name in that category of products or services who generate confusion in the consumer. (please refer to Nicks Email on this).

- Applicants for a string (eg of a city name) have a specific and direct interest to their application, are interested in certainty and in not receiving objections when they are well into an application process. Such applicants are aware of ICANN and its procedures, as this is a prerequisite for obtaining the delegation.

- Applicants will usually be aware that the string they wish to apply for is also a city name. If not they can do a search and identify potential cities with that name. ICANN and GAC Members can help identifying relevant public authorities (AGB 2012).

- City Governments (hundreds of thousands worlwide) do not know ICANN. They cannot be expected to monitor its proceedings and actively look for their city names being applied for and to object within deadlines they ignore.

- Non-objection-letters worked generally well under the 2012 AGB, in 60+ cases.

- Only few cases (1-2) have been referred to where potential issues with the "non-objection" as such were identified.

- Further study of such cases could be warranted, considering evidence from the parties involved, i.e. both applicants and relevant public authorities. This analysis could warrant identifying improvements to the non-objection-letter. At the same time, the fact that no agreement was found between applicants and city governments may have different, legitimate causes.

- Non-objection letters fairly puts the burden on the party with specific and direct interests in the application to reach out to the relevant public authorities of the corresponding city. It gets those specific interest-holders on a table with the representatives of the public interest of the people living in the city with that name. This system allows for different solutions to be worked out between the parties, which may go from "laisser-faire", to participation in governance of the string, to joint initiatives etc.

- If more than one city has the same name, all benefit equally from the nom-objection instrument, as all have a say.

- Potential issues to be further analysed:

a) cases where issues arose with the non-objection letter as such. Improvements to the non-objection letter system.

b) ...

Hope this is helpful

best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:49:39 MESZ An: liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> <liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> Cc: gnso-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>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Dear Liz

Thanks, but one has to reflect all views when you try such a thing. You just summarize the views of those people with your views. And you conclude it with your initial statement (100 messages ago) on the non-objection-letter, without having considered the arguments of others... that, you may concede, is not quite objective...

To be short: we have four very capable co-leads and staff, let's them do their job and produce a third-party summary of the discussion so far.

Best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:43:24 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: 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

Jorge

If you want to do a better job of summarising things as we track along, go right ahead. That task is always open to anyone on the group, the co-chairs and ICANN staff supporting the work. I really don't give a fig who does it.it just needs to be done so that we are moving along diligently. Otherwise we end up in ridiculous circles of oneupmanship which I don't care for.

I've done more than enough in my time of trying to read rough consensus, considering differing points of view and trying to come up with best practice that I really don't mind who does what.

It all needs to be fed back to the bigger SubPro group and then to the GNSO and then to the Board and then to public comment so we are MILES from any final position.

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.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/>>

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 7 May 2018, at 2:34 pm, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:

Dear Liz

I guess that you mean that this is a good summary of the opinions expressed by some, but which do not represent those expressed by many others (e.g. Alexander, Kathrin, Nick, Giacomo, Marita, Yrjo, Nouar, Kavouss... and I).

Let's leave these summaries to the co-leads. Otherwise we will have many different summaries.

best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e>> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 02:00:49 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e>> Cc: 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>> <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%3e>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Hello everyone

I am really pleased that this thread has yielded such a diverse set of perspectives. I wanted to, if we could, try to wrap up some things that we may or may not have consensus on so that we can discuss that on the next call. That might help the co-chairs and staff?

1. We want to continue to have clear, objective and fact based policies associated with the assessment of all TLD applications. This, of course, includes geographic terms.

2. We need to have clear application evaluation procedures that ensure that the ICANN Board, GAC, applicants understand exactly what their respective roles are. In a multi-stakeholder environment, no one has primacy over another. The GAC is very different from national governments and can only provide collective consensus advice to the ICANN Board. The GAC has no operational role. However, individual member governments may have different opinions about specific applications for TLDs.

These two things are no different from what we had hoped would happen in previous rounds. Where we have diverged is that the role of the Board and GAC and the ICANN organisation dramatically changed the implementation of the evaluation process for many applicants. Interference in the evaluation process was problematic and unfair as has been demonstrated in numerous examples. We need to address that unfairness in implementation suggestions.

For the next round, I would suggest that we, at a policy level, do not change 1 above. However, we should have plenty to say on the implementation of those policies because, given the level of disagreement/misunderstanding/positioning, we are not in agreement.

From listening to the discussion I think we have general consensus that

1. Geographic terms are important for the next round of applications for many reasons which are consistent with ICANN's Mission and Core Values.

2. That the expansion of "lists" of things is not an effective or useful or reliable way of determining what could be in or out beyond ISO 3166. Expansion of the application of national law into the international realm of the domain name system is neither effective or appropriate. We already have in place numerous elements which can be relied upon by applications and evaluators to fairly and predictably "treat" applications for TLD labels that may have geographic significance.

3. We agree that governments may be concerned with geographic terms but they do not own them or control or have a right of veto over an application. Governments are legitimate applicants for geographic terms. They are also legitimate objectors, like any one else, to applications.

Looking forward to hearing other views but I hope that we, finally, get rid of the "non-objection" artifact which can be capricious (if a government changes), subjective (because we haven't successfully articulated what non-objection looks like on a consistent basis), and it is much easier to either support something or object to it (using clearly set out guidelines).

Best wishes.

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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto: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%3e%3chttp:/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 7 May 2018, at 9:24 am, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e>> wrote:

I want to thank Alexander for so ably expressing a view that I can really resonate with. Cities are as unique and culturally relevant as countries -- many of them have been around longer than the countries they now reside in (Istanbul). Would it be possible to create a list of cities that are large enough that their names should be treated as reserved for the use of the people of that city to identify themselves just as countries do through ccTLD's? Could we set the conditions that would lead to such a list? Inevitably, some cities would be excluded and seek inclusion. But we have to start somewhere.

Marita Moll

On 5/5/2018 1:41 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Robin,

I think you and I share a certain "distain" for regulation exercised through "Governments". You write:

"It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis."

You and Greg are seemingly working off the assumption that somebody wants to help GOVERNMENTS to "protect" their territories in the DNS. But why don't you and Greg ever think about THE PEOPLE? I honestly couldn't care less about Governments - but I do care very much and very passionate about PEOPLE. And we need to make sure that the constituents of a city are looped into the decision what happens to their city name in the DNS. In the 2012 AGB this was facilitated by CITY Governments (NOT national Governments). Forget for a moment about "Governments" - and root for THE PEOPLE: How to protect THEM? NOT from "misrepresentation" - but from the ability to identify themselves through city gTLD domain names (see the equivalent via ccTLDs).

Hence my proposal to REQUIRE a "community priority application" if the string is identical to a ("sizeable") city: I want that THE PEOPLE in a city are INVOLVED. Not enough to just go to the major, promise 85% of (diluted) "profits" - and then blanket the space with hundreds of non-managed city gTLDs applied for to "just make big bucks"; instead of having locally managed and promoted CITY initiatives that THRIVE!

Thanks,

Alexander.berlin

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 7:20 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> 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%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e>> wrote:

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.

I think Greg's suggestion to focus on intended use is a very helpful suggestion for our work. It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis. We don't want to encourage a misrepresentation, but we also are obligated to recognize competing legitimate interests to the same term and in cases where there is no misrepresentation connected with the intended use of TLD with geographic meaning, those applicants should be allowed to go forward, unless they violate international law on some other ground.

Thanks, Robin

On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e>> wrote:

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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e>> 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><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au> <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e>> 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><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e>> 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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto: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/> <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3ewww.auda.org.au%3chttp://www.auda.org.au%3e%3chttp://www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp://www.auda.org.au%3chttp://www.auda.org.au/%3e>>

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><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e>> 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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/> <http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e>

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:32 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e>> 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<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e>> 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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e>>, 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.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e>> <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.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e>>, 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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e>> <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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e>> 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/><http://france.com/><http://France.com<http://france.com/> <http://france.com/%3e%3chttp:/France.com%3chttp:/france.com/%3e>>.

Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/><http://rodenbaugh.com/> <http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e>

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:19 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e>> 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@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>> <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3e>> 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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3e>>, 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.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e>> <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.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: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:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e,gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e>> <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:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/> <http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e>

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>>> <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3cmailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com%3e%3e%3e%3e>] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2018 09:49 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3e>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3e%3e%3e%3e>>; 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.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.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.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>>;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: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:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e;gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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/>><http://city.com<http://city.com/><http://city.com/>> <http://city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3e%3chttp:/city.com%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3e>> 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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/> <http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e>

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:28 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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-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@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@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@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%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3e>] 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><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: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.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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: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: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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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><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: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.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3cmailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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 <mailto:image001.png@01D3E2D4.C11E9F30>]

________________________________ From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <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@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@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@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@icann.org>>> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.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><mailto:alexander@schubert.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%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3e%3e%3e>> Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 5:16 PM To: 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: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: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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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-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@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%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>] 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<mailto: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>><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net>>> <mailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e>> 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: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: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%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> 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<mailto: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>><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net>>>> <mailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3cmailto:dave@davecake.net%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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.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.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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>>>> <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3e%3e>> 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.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.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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>>> <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3cmailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au%3e%3e%3e>> 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/><http://www.auda.org.au/>><http://www.auda.org.au/ <http://www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au/%3e%3e%3chttp:/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: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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <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: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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <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: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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <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: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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <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: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: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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e%3e%3e>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <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: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%3e%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org%3e>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <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:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <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 <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway **************************************************

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

Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"

_My comments to Alexanders email below online_ --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez El 2018-05-07 12:19, Alexander Schubert escribió:

Dear Annabeth,

Apologies to have been one of the more eager posters here; and for having repeated myself many times. So a very short reply to yours and other contributions from over the weekend:

· Thanks for your summary Liz - that's the view of a few here and it is as such valid - but by no means a blueprint to move on. _CARLOS agrees_

· Thanks for the summary provided by Jorge - obviously I root for that one much more (and I know from private conversations that A LOT of the "silent majority" here are with him). _CARLOS agrees and don't want to remain silent_

· Thanks to Christopher for his summary! I especially like your condemnation of the "Non-geographic use"-clause; it will have to be thrown out; you are right! _Agree also with WC and his redirection to general GeoNames comments that should take us out of the Cities - Cul de Sac (traditional french usage, please do not get shocked by your translator)_

· Katrin: like always spot on. _Very much so! Also in agreement with Katrin. I think that the whole group should pay more attention to the Cities success in the last round and DON'T TRY TO FIX IT IF IT AIN'T BROKEN!!!_

Annabeth, you asked for specific policy proposals, here I go:

· The 2012 AGB is the basis - all we do is have to alter it a bit here and there. We are NOT inventing the wheel again. So here my suggestions of alteration:

o As has been mentioned many times and recently by Christopher Wilkens: The Non-geographic use"-clause can't stand; and will probably have to be reconsidered (deleted).

o There needs to be a threshold to determine "cities of relevance" - being it a population size or a repository or maybe both. I do not support that tiny cities can stop generic applications, or brands (I hope Greg is reading this: I am not the evil brand hater).

The 2012 AGB mentions only "cities" in 2. of "2.2.1.4.2 Geographic Names Requiring Government Support". But I think we never defined "city" - Wikipedia says that some cities start at a population of 1,500 and that in the U.S. there is even a "Broad Top City", Pennsylvania: population 452. While ".broadtop" might not be a massively sought after gTLD string: it is quite generic or might be a brand. I think we really need a cut-off criteria; e.g. population size. It can't be that hundreds of thousands of tiny cities (which never ever will seek a gTLD) will have to be asked for letters of non-objection.

Otherwise I think the 2012 AGB worked out quite well for CITIES! I think the ISO 3166-2 "sub-national place name" would need the SAME population size cut-off as cities. Doesn't make sense that a 15k people region gets a priority. Solution: Simply keep the ISO 3166-2 "sub-national place name" provision in place - but ONLY for places with more than "X" names!

_ALEXANDER I WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST A RELATIVE CUT-OFF, OR MANY BALTIC SATES MAGIC LOOSE THE CHANCES......._

Thanks,

Alexander.berlin

FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Annebeth Lange SENT: Monday, May 07, 2018 12:55 PM TO: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Dear colleagues,

As one of the co-chairs in WT5 I have followed the discussion but kept myself in the background to see where this discussion leads. As co-chairs we have to be neutral, even if the 4 of us represent different SO/AC groups and, I am sure, have different views. But we all want to get a solution that is predictable and as close to full consensus as possible.

However, I would like to remind members to only add new points rather than reiterating the same points already raised and to focus on a specific task or topic at hand. It is not easy for those of us not having English as our mother tongue formulate our opinions and we do not have the power of argumentation that those with English as native language have. This should also be thought of. I am afraid there are members in WT5 that is totally overwhelmed by this and do not feel it within their power

to go against those strong and competent comments. Still, I encourage everyone interested in this issue to raise their voice.

It is obvious that the differences are huge between the SO/ACs on this issue. And I do feel that the conversation is going in circles here. It would be good if members submit specific proposals that take all views into consideration.

I would like to remind you and highlight some resources as starting points for discussion regarding proposals -- there are a number of proposals put forward in the 2017 webinars that might be helpful to draw on:

https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2017-04-25+Geographic+Names+Webina...

In addition, the facilitators of the geo names sessions at ICANN59 did a very good job of summarizing some of the underlying interests and possible paths forward, based on interviews with different stakeholders and input through discussions at the meeting (see slides):

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=66081677

Some of this might provide inspiration in the discussion on ways to create greater structure.

Thanks to everyone for your eagerness and dedication to discuss this issue. As a last point, I would like to remind you that also the AGB 2012 rules on cities were a compromise, that the multistakeholders used long time to find and that have worked quite well even if not everybody got what they wanted.

Kind regards,

Annebeth

FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Mazzone, Giacomo" <mazzone@ebu.ch> DATE: Monday, 7 May 2018 at 09:54 TO: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> CC: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Dear Jorge,

This seems to me a more balanced summary of the discussion.

There are some points that could be even more motivated (I see ,for instance, that you don't mentioned the cases from Italy that I mentioned in my mails, like "Capri" , where international brands company where denied to use these names in the Court without previous agreement of the local authorities) but we can improve the wording later.

Thank you Jorge for this work.

Giacomo

-----Original Message-----

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch

Sent: lundi 7 mai 2018 07:43

To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch

Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org

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

Dear all,

Here is another summary of the issue, which could help co-leads in preparing their third party-recap:

- TLDs are unique. If a string composed by one name as such is delegated others with an interest on that name will be prevented from using that name.

- Distinctions based on intended use is therefore not helpful. "Intended use" limitations also imply impractical enforcement challenges that would be posed by any circumventing on intended use by third parties, such as registrants...

- city names are geographic terms that have political, historical, economic (sometimes religious) and social connotations for the populations, communities affected.

- city governments have responsibilities over their names as their primary identifiers in social, national, political and economic interactions and as identification of their peoples.

- Their responsibilities are laid down in different public policy and law instruments (in Switzerland we have seen that they, inter alia, have rights on their names under civil right). The city name is subject to general/public interests representent by that city government. City governments act according to the laws of the countries they are established and accountable under them.

- City names as such are not subject to rights by private parties. A monopolization of a city name by private parties is forbidden under laws pertaining to business names and trademark registration in a number of jurisdictions. Trademark interests to city names refer normally to composed names ("lucerne foods") and are limited to specific products and services in certain jurisdictions, in order to avoid consumer confusion. They protect against others using that name in that category of products or services who generate confusion in the consumer. (please refer to Nicks Email on this).

- Applicants for a string (eg of a city name) have a specific and direct interest to their application, are interested in certainty and in not receiving objections when they are well into an application process. Such applicants are aware of ICANN and its procedures, as this is a prerequisite for obtaining the delegation.

- Applicants will usually be aware that the string they wish to apply for is also a city name. If not they can do a search and identify potential cities with that name. ICANN and GAC Members can help identifying relevant public authorities (AGB 2012).

- City Governments (hundreds of thousands worlwide) do not know ICANN. They cannot be expected to monitor its proceedings and actively look for their city names being applied for and to object within deadlines they ignore.

- Non-objection-letters worked generally well under the 2012 AGB, in 60+ cases.

- Only few cases (1-2) have been referred to where potential issues with the "non-objection" as such were identified.

- Further study of such cases could be warranted, considering evidence from the parties involved, i.e. both applicants and relevant public authorities. This analysis could warrant identifying improvements to the non-objection-letter. At the same time, the fact that no agreement was found between applicants and city governments may have different, legitimate causes.

- Non-objection letters fairly puts the burden on the party with specific and direct interests in the application to reach out to the relevant public authorities of the corresponding city. It gets those specific interest-holders on a table with the representatives of the public interest of the people living in the city with that name. This system allows for different solutions to be worked out between the parties, which may go from "laisser-faire", to participation in governance of the string, to joint initiatives etc.

- If more than one city has the same name, all benefit equally from the nom-objection instrument, as all have a say.

- Potential issues to be further analysed:

a) cases where issues arose with the non-objection letter as such. Improvements to the non-objection letter system.

b) ...

Hope this is helpful

best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>

Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:49:39 MESZ

An: liz.williams@auda.org.au <liz.williams@auda.org.au>

Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>

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

Dear Liz

Thanks, but one has to reflect all views when you try such a thing. You just summarize the views of those people with your views. And you conclude it with your initial statement (100 messages ago) on the non-objection-letter, without having considered the arguments of others... that, you may concede, is not quite objective...

To be short: we have four very capable co-leads and staff, let's them do their job and produce a third-party summary of the discussion so far.

Best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au>

Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:43:24 MESZ

An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>

Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>

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

Jorge

If you want to do a better job of summarising things as we track along, go right ahead. That task is always open to anyone on the group, the co-chairs and ICANN staff supporting the work. I really don't give a fig who does it.it just needs to be done so that we are moving along diligently. Otherwise we end up in ridiculous circles of oneupmanship which I don't care for.

I've done more than enough in my time of trying to read rough consensus, considering differing points of view and trying to come up with best practice that I really don't mind who does what.

It all needs to be fed back to the bigger SubPro group and then to the GNSO and then to the Board and then to public comment so we are MILES from any final position.

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> 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 7 May 2018, at 2:34 pm, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

Dear Liz

I guess that you mean that this is a good summary of the opinions expressed by some, but which do not represent those expressed by many others (e.g. Alexander, Kathrin, Nick, Giacomo, Marita, Yrjo, Nouar, Kavouss... and I).

Let's leave these summaries to the co-leads. Otherwise we will have many different summaries.

best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>>

Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 02:00:49 MESZ

An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>

Cc: gnso-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>>

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

Hello everyone

I am really pleased that this thread has yielded such a diverse set of perspectives. I wanted to, if we could, try to wrap up some things that we may or may not have consensus on so that we can discuss that on the next call. That might help the co-chairs and staff?

1. We want to continue to have clear, objective and fact based policies associated with the assessment of all TLD applications. This, of course, includes geographic terms.

2. We need to have clear application evaluation procedures that ensure that the ICANN Board, GAC, applicants understand exactly what their respective roles are. In a multi-stakeholder environment, no one has primacy over another. The GAC is very different from national governments and can only provide collective consensus advice to the ICANN Board. The GAC has no operational role. However, individual member governments may have different opinions about specific applications for TLDs.

These two things are no different from what we had hoped would happen in previous rounds. Where we have diverged is that the role of the Board and GAC and the ICANN organisation dramatically changed the implementation of the evaluation process for many applicants. Interference in the evaluation process was problematic and unfair as has been demonstrated in numerous examples. We need to address that unfairness in implementation suggestions.

For the next round, I would suggest that we, at a policy level, do not change 1 above. However, we should have plenty to say on the implementation of those policies because, given the level of disagreement/misunderstanding/positioning, we are not in agreement.

From listening to the discussion I think we have general consensus that

1. Geographic terms are important for the next round of applications for many reasons which are consistent with ICANN's Mission and Core Values.

2. That the expansion of "lists" of things is not an effective or useful or reliable way of determining what could be in or out beyond ISO 3166. Expansion of the application of national law into the international realm of the domain name system is neither effective or appropriate. We already have in place numerous elements which can be relied upon by applications and evaluators to fairly and predictably "treat" applications for TLD labels that may have geographic significance.

3. We agree that governments may be concerned with geographic terms but they do not own them or control or have a right of veto over an application. Governments are legitimate applicants for geographic terms. They are also legitimate objectors, like any one else, to applications.

Looking forward to hearing other views but I hope that we, finally, get rid of the "non-objection" artifact which can be capricious (if a government changes), subjective (because we haven't successfully articulated what non-objection looks like on a consistent basis), and it is much easier to either support something or object to it (using clearly set out guidelines).

Best wishes.

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.williams@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au><http://www.auda.org.au [1]>

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 7 May 2018, at 9:24 am, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote:

I want to thank Alexander for so ably expressing a view that I can really resonate with. Cities are as unique and culturally relevant as countries -- many of them have been around longer than the countries they now reside in (Istanbul). Would it be possible to create a list of cities that are large enough that their names should be treated as reserved for the use of the people of that city to identify themselves just as countries do through ccTLD's? Could we set the conditions that would lead to such a list? Inevitably, some cities would be excluded and seek inclusion. But we have to start somewhere.

Marita Moll

On 5/5/2018 1:41 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:

Robin,

I think you and I share a certain "distain" for regulation exercised through "Governments". You write:

"It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis."

You and Greg are seemingly working off the assumption that somebody wants to help GOVERNMENTS to "protect" their territories in the DNS. But why don't you and Greg ever think about THE PEOPLE? I honestly couldn't care less about Governments - but I do care very much and very passionate about PEOPLE. And we need to make sure that the constituents of a city are looped into the decision what happens to their city name in the DNS. In the 2012 AGB this was facilitated by CITY Governments (NOT national Governments). Forget for a moment about "Governments" - and root for THE PEOPLE: How to protect THEM? NOT from "misrepresentation" - but from the ability to identify themselves through city gTLD domain names (see the equivalent via ccTLDs).

Hence my proposal to REQUIRE a "community priority application" if the string is identical to a ("sizeable") city: I want that THE PEOPLE in a city are INVOLVED. Not enough to just go to the major, promise 85% of (diluted) "profits" - and then blanket the space with hundreds of non-managed city gTLDs applied for to "just make big bucks"; instead of having locally managed and promoted CITY initiatives that THRIVE!

Thanks,

Alexander.berlin

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross

Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 7:20 PM

To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>

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>

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

On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:

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.

I think Greg's suggestion to focus on intended use is a very helpful suggestion for our work. It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis. We don't want to encourage a misrepresentation, but we also are obligated to recognize competing legitimate interests to the same term and in cases where there is no misrepresentation connected with the intended use of TLD with geographic meaning, those applicants should be allowed to go forward, unless they violate international law on some other ground.

Thanks,

Robin

On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:

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><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><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><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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto: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/>>

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<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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/> [2]

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:32 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>

Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>, 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<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>, 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>> <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/><http://France.com<http://france.com/> [3]>.

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087

http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/><http://rodenbaugh.com/> [2]

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:19 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<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@rodenbaugh.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>>

Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>, 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.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<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>>>>,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: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:gnso-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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/> [2]

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto: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@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@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:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>>; 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.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.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.inter.net>>>>;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: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:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-new gtld-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<http://city.com/><http://city.com/>> [4]> 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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/> [2]

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:28 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto: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-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@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@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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<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<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: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.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@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: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: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

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<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: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.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@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@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@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@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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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@schubert.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<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: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: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>>>>

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-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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@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><mailto: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<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: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:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-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><mailto: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<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.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.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.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.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.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.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/>><http://www.auda.org.au/ [5]>

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: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: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>>>>

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: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: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>>>>

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: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: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>>>>

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: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: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>>>>

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: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: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>>>>

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: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<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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**************************************************

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway

**************************************************

_______________________________________________

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

Links: ------ [1] http://www.auda.org.au%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au [2] http://rodenbaugh.com%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e%3chttp:/rodenbaugh.com/%3e [3] http://france.com/%3e%3chttp:/France.com%3chttp:/france.com/%3e [4] http://city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com/%3e%3chttp:/city.com%3chttp:/city.com/%... [5] http://www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org.au/%3e%3chttp:/www.auda.org....

Hi all, I would like to express strong support for Jorge and Nicks comments raised earlier in this thread. I also support Katrins comments on “intended use” and the non-objection- letter. It seems to me that the long-standing work done in the community resulting in the AGB2012 is a compromise that we should keep. Best regards Ann-Cathrin Marcussen Head of Legal UNINETT Norid AS 7465 Trondheim Oslokontor St Olavs Plass 2 0165 Oslo Mobil +47 920 14 282 acm@uninett.no<mailto:acm@uninett.no> On 7 May 2018, at 13:33, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.com>> wrote: Dear All, let me chime in here as a registry of geoTLDs (.berlin, .hamburg): I support the comments raised by Jorge and Nick and would like to add a few further thoughts on the proposals raised in the past days: On the proposal of adding "Intended use": - The definition of objective and transparent criteria for "intended use" during the application process seems to me pretty hard, to determine whether the "intended use" is out of a geoTLD scope or not. - How to monitor and enforce domain names registrations according to "intended use" after delegation? - If domain names are registered not according to "intended use", who is responsible? The registry? The registrar? The registrant? And who would enforce the "intended use"? - If a registry operates/markets the TLD after delegation unintentionally or intentionally not according to "intended use", what would be the consequence? Non-objection letter - The non-objection letter has been (also) a means (for governments) to become aware of an application. - If we were to dismiss the non-objection letter, which alternative would we recommend how governments can become aware of an application? As long as we do not find solutions, which solve more issues than raise new ones, I would rather keep the compromise in the AGB 2012. Kind regards, Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Gesendet: Montag, 7. Mai 2018 07:43 An: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Dear all, Here is another summary of the issue, which could help co-leads in preparing their third party-recap: - TLDs are unique. If a string composed by one name as such is delegated others with an interest on that name will be prevented from using that name. - Distinctions based on intended use is therefore not helpful. "Intended use" limitations also imply impractical enforcement challenges that would be posed by any circumventing on intended use by third parties, such as registrants... - city names are geographic terms that have political, historical, economic (sometimes religious) and social connotations for the populations, communities affected. - city governments have responsibilities over their names as their primary identifiers in social, national, political and economic interactions and as identification of their peoples. - Their responsibilities are laid down in different public policy and law instruments (in Switzerland we have seen that they, inter alia, have rights on their names under civil right). The city name is subject to general/public interests representent by that city government. City governments act according to the laws of the countries they are established and accountable under them. - City names as such are not subject to rights by private parties. A monopolization of a city name by private parties is forbidden under laws pertaining to business names and trademark registration in a number of jurisdictions. Trademark interests to city names refer normally to composed names ("lucerne foods") and are limited to specific products and services in certain jurisdictions, in order to avoid consumer confusion. They protect against others using that name in that category of products or services who generate confusion in the consumer. (please refer to Nicks Email on this). - Applicants for a string (eg of a city name) have a specific and direct interest to their application, are interested in certainty and in not receiving objections when they are well into an application process. Such applicants are aware of ICANN and its procedures, as this is a prerequisite for obtaining the delegation. - Applicants will usually be aware that the string they wish to apply for is also a city name. If not they can do a search and identify potential cities with that name. ICANN and GAC Members can help identifying relevant public authorities (AGB 2012). - City Governments (hundreds of thousands worlwide) do not know ICANN. They cannot be expected to monitor its proceedings and actively look for their city names being applied for and to object within deadlines they ignore. - Non-objection-letters worked generally well under the 2012 AGB, in 60+ cases. - Only few cases (1-2) have been referred to where potential issues with the "non-objection" as such were identified. - Further study of such cases could be warranted, considering evidence from the parties involved, i.e. both applicants and relevant public authorities. This analysis could warrant identifying improvements to the non-objection-letter. At the same time, the fact that no agreement was found between applicants and city governments may have different, legitimate causes. - Non-objection letters fairly puts the burden on the party with specific and direct interests in the application to reach out to the relevant public authorities of the corresponding city. It gets those specific interest-holders on a table with the representatives of the public interest of the people living in the city with that name. This system allows for different solutions to be worked out between the parties, which may go from "laisser-faire", to participation in governance of the string, to joint initiatives etc. - If more than one city has the same name, all benefit equally from the nom-objection instrument, as all have a say. - Potential issues to be further analysed: a) cases where issues arose with the non-objection letter as such. Improvements to the non-objection letter system. b) ... Hope this is helpful best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:49:39 MESZ An: liz.williams@auda.org.au <liz.williams@auda.org.au> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Dear Liz Thanks, but one has to reflect all views when you try such a thing. You just summarize the views of those people with your views. And you conclude it with your initial statement (100 messages ago) on the non-objection-letter, without having considered the arguments of others... that, you may concede, is not quite objective... To be short: we have four very capable co-leads and staff, let's them do their job and produce a third-party summary of the discussion so far. Best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:43:24 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Jorge If you want to do a better job of summarising things as we track along, go right ahead. That task is always open to anyone on the group, the co-chairs and ICANN staff supporting the work. I really don't give a fig who does it.it just needs to be done so that we are moving along diligently. Otherwise we end up in ridiculous circles of oneupmanship which I don't care for. I've done more than enough in my time of trying to read rough consensus, considering differing points of view and trying to come up with best practice that I really don't mind who does what. It all needs to be fed back to the bigger SubPro group and then to the GNSO and then to the Board and then to public comment so we are MILES from any final position. 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> 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 7 May 2018, at 2:34 pm, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Liz I guess that you mean that this is a good summary of the opinions expressed by some, but which do not represent those expressed by many others (e.g. Alexander, Kathrin, Nick, Giacomo, Marita, Yrjo, Nouar, Kavouss... and I). Let's leave these summaries to the co-leads. Otherwise we will have many different summaries. best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 02:00:49 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> Cc: gnso-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>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names Hello everyone I am really pleased that this thread has yielded such a diverse set of perspectives. I wanted to, if we could, try to wrap up some things that we may or may not have consensus on so that we can discuss that on the next call. That might help the co-chairs and staff? 1. We want to continue to have clear, objective and fact based policies associated with the assessment of all TLD applications. This, of course, includes geographic terms. 2. We need to have clear application evaluation procedures that ensure that the ICANN Board, GAC, applicants understand exactly what their respective roles are. In a multi-stakeholder environment, no one has primacy over another. The GAC is very different from national governments and can only provide collective consensus advice to the ICANN Board. The GAC has no operational role. However, individual member governments may have different opinions about specific applications for TLDs. These two things are no different from what we had hoped would happen in previous rounds. Where we have diverged is that the role of the Board and GAC and the ICANN organisation dramatically changed the implementation of the evaluation process for many applicants. Interference in the evaluation process was problematic and unfair as has been demonstrated in numerous examples. We need to address that unfairness in implementation suggestions. For the next round, I would suggest that we, at a policy level, do not change 1 above. However, we should have plenty to say on the implementation of those policies because, given the level of disagreement/misunderstanding/positioning, we are not in agreement. From listening to the discussion I think we have general consensus that 1. Geographic terms are important for the next round of applications for many reasons which are consistent with ICANN's Mission and Core Values. 2. That the expansion of "lists" of things is not an effective or useful or reliable way of determining what could be in or out beyond ISO 3166. Expansion of the application of national law into the international realm of the domain name system is neither effective or appropriate. We already have in place numerous elements which can be relied upon by applications and evaluators to fairly and predictably "treat" applications for TLD labels that may have geographic significance. 3. We agree that governments may be concerned with geographic terms but they do not own them or control or have a right of veto over an application. Governments are legitimate applicants for geographic terms. They are also legitimate objectors, like any one else, to applications. Looking forward to hearing other views but I hope that we, finally, get rid of the "non-objection" artifact which can be capricious (if a government changes), subjective (because we haven't successfully articulated what non-objection looks like on a consistent basis), and it is much easier to either support something or object to it (using clearly set out guidelines). Best wishes. 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.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 7 May 2018, at 9:24 am, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: I want to thank Alexander for so ably expressing a view that I can really resonate with. Cities are as unique and culturally relevant as countries -- many of them have been around longer than the countries they now reside in (Istanbul). Would it be possible to create a list of cities that are large enough that their names should be treated as reserved for the use of the people of that city to identify themselves just as countries do through ccTLD's? Could we set the conditions that would lead to such a list? Inevitably, some cities would be excluded and seek inclusion. But we have to start somewhere. Marita Moll On 5/5/2018 1:41 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Robin, I think you and I share a certain "distain" for regulation exercised through "Governments". You write: "It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis." You and Greg are seemingly working off the assumption that somebody wants to help GOVERNMENTS to "protect" their territories in the DNS. But why don't you and Greg ever think about THE PEOPLE? I honestly couldn't care less about Governments - but I do care very much and very passionate about PEOPLE. And we need to make sure that the constituents of a city are looped into the decision what happens to their city name in the DNS. In the 2012 AGB this was facilitated by CITY Governments (NOT national Governments). Forget for a moment about "Governments" - and root for THE PEOPLE: How to protect THEM? NOT from "misrepresentation" - but from the ability to identify themselves through city gTLD domain names (see the equivalent via ccTLDs). Hence my proposal to REQUIRE a "community priority application" if the string is identical to a ("sizeable") city: I want that THE PEOPLE in a city are INVOLVED. Not enough to just go to the major, promise 85% of (diluted) "profits" - and then blanket the space with hundreds of non-managed city gTLDs applied for to "just make big bucks"; instead of having locally managed and promoted CITY initiatives that THRIVE! Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 7:20 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> 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> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: 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. I think Greg's suggestion to focus on intended use is a very helpful suggestion for our work. It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis. We don't want to encourage a misrepresentation, but we also are obligated to recognize competing legitimate interests to the same term and in cases where there is no misrepresentation connected with the intended use of TLD with geographic meaning, those applicants should be allowed to go forward, unless they violate international law on some other ground. Thanks, Robin On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: 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><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><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><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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto: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/>> 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<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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:32 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>, 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<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>, 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>> <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/><http://France.com<http://france.com/>>. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<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@rodenbaugh.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>, 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.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<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>>>>,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: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:gnso-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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto: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@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@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:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>>; 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.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.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.inter.net>>>>;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: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:gnso-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<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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:28 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto: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-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@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@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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<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<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: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.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@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: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: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 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<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: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.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@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@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@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@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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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@schubert.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<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: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: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>>>> 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-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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@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><mailto: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<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: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:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-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><mailto: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<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.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.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.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.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.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.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/>><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: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: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>>>> 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: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: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>>>> 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: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: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>>>> 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: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: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>>>> 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: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: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>>>> 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: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<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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Thank you very much for your comments Katrin! This ¨intended use¨sound familiar to me. And just as a reminder to the groups, we should not forget that there should be a way for a policy-based treatment for ¨Public Interest Committments¨ in applications, evaluations and delegations. This is in my personal view, that a big black policy hole in the AGB was supplanted by ad hoc negotiations between very innovative applicants, GAC and Icann in the last round. I wonder if it is not being dealt already in other WTs???? Best --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQENBFqh7xwBCAC7PBUUek72U8teLrAieWI+JBo/nz0rQObzKgzGNWm2bb+i90mD roNsrvwDJiGOsB/VAhJy6ilIhs++QrxhVEzMz6oKJa8ANaNNvnK2Z8heYm1aC97E qY6y1z853b6F3XrN8262dor9NZEqaK28NVwLsFTfkGKhb4f3rJlCDmhwxt5VHhBQ MHKGxyutq0fyJpG6QpoAoRLaYXrq+xjXARhN9JBjeRRzbjnBbWt7+lRdCrZdOxfD ivRut9F2zMJq8RmeI5goTcq03IRLtKf41A6Np5K//HLe7GlHWH9g4pSKF+UB+EMe S506TxI0dVbyT3jlTnhhfNA/bpQXHcdCZ5EhABEBAAG0F2Nhcmxvc3JhdWxAZ3V0 aWVycmV6LnNliQEcBBABAgAGBQJaoe8cAAoJEOkK/VKjr2tvztgH/1zInwNszd4w 21UilxVmXX2J1SPZG6xXwbwU5BukIm7iBVYwxxPlIAZdJbG0/QynK2oWU1e1Zjed vBemfJtjOn2yRWo3P13PUV/2/trHWgUk5bA3eIUbWDW5fQRLW+TaHC7TuRKgRaJC NgdBItEniQz7DakGzld3PWmsTvIWd4N/fqzATD3DOZmONF52lyVuAEvKoF4rMRTR emvCrL66xEu19u9+Urk7R+DQuFQMNuX0MqC6/vIsmXYZPH7jnV6ZDyzb0BUnjYcx 6MH/YwJx29yjA4iN1NpwCpy1hc+YP1oavz2t+6isM6wB0mXlAazw2d83zwypsH6C 8xgjuRFm9xQ= =RX04 -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- El 2018-05-07 05:33, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH escribió:

Dear All,

let me chime in here as a registry of geoTLDs (.berlin, .hamburg):

I support the comments raised by Jorge and Nick and would like to add a few further thoughts on the proposals raised in the past days:

On the proposal of adding "Intended use": - The definition of objective and transparent criteria for "intended use" during the application process seems to me pretty hard, to determine whether the "intended use" is out of a geoTLD scope or not. - How to monitor and enforce domain names registrations according to "intended use" after delegation? - If domain names are registered not according to "intended use", who is responsible? The registry? The registrar? The registrant? And who would enforce the "intended use"? - If a registry operates/markets the TLD after delegation unintentionally or intentionally not according to "intended use", what would be the consequence?

Non-objection letter - The non-objection letter has been (also) a means (for governments) to become aware of an application. - If we were to dismiss the non-objection letter, which alternative would we recommend how governments can become aware of an application?

As long as we do not find solutions, which solve more issues than raise new ones, I would rather keep the compromise in the AGB 2012.

Kind regards, Katrin

DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting www.dotzon.consulting [1]

DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Gesendet: Montag, 7. Mai 2018 07:43 An: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Dear all,

Here is another summary of the issue, which could help co-leads in preparing their third party-recap:

- TLDs are unique. If a string composed by one name as such is delegated others with an interest on that name will be prevented from using that name.

- Distinctions based on intended use is therefore not helpful. "Intended use" limitations also imply impractical enforcement challenges that would be posed by any circumventing on intended use by third parties, such as registrants...

- city names are geographic terms that have political, historical, economic (sometimes religious) and social connotations for the populations, communities affected.

- city governments have responsibilities over their names as their primary identifiers in social, national, political and economic interactions and as identification of their peoples.

- Their responsibilities are laid down in different public policy and law instruments (in Switzerland we have seen that they, inter alia, have rights on their names under civil right). The city name is subject to general/public interests representent by that city government. City governments act according to the laws of the countries they are established and accountable under them.

- City names as such are not subject to rights by private parties. A monopolization of a city name by private parties is forbidden under laws pertaining to business names and trademark registration in a number of jurisdictions. Trademark interests to city names refer normally to composed names ("lucerne foods") and are limited to specific products and services in certain jurisdictions, in order to avoid consumer confusion. They protect against others using that name in that category of products or services who generate confusion in the consumer. (please refer to Nicks Email on this).

- Applicants for a string (eg of a city name) have a specific and direct interest to their application, are interested in certainty and in not receiving objections when they are well into an application process. Such applicants are aware of ICANN and its procedures, as this is a prerequisite for obtaining the delegation.

- Applicants will usually be aware that the string they wish to apply for is also a city name. If not they can do a search and identify potential cities with that name. ICANN and GAC Members can help identifying relevant public authorities (AGB 2012).

- City Governments (hundreds of thousands worlwide) do not know ICANN. They cannot be expected to monitor its proceedings and actively look for their city names being applied for and to object within deadlines they ignore.

- Non-objection-letters worked generally well under the 2012 AGB, in 60+ cases.

- Only few cases (1-2) have been referred to where potential issues with the "non-objection" as such were identified.

- Further study of such cases could be warranted, considering evidence from the parties involved, i.e. both applicants and relevant public authorities. This analysis could warrant identifying improvements to the non-objection-letter. At the same time, the fact that no agreement was found between applicants and city governments may have different, legitimate causes.

- Non-objection letters fairly puts the burden on the party with specific and direct interests in the application to reach out to the relevant public authorities of the corresponding city. It gets those specific interest-holders on a table with the representatives of the public interest of the people living in the city with that name. This system allows for different solutions to be worked out between the parties, which may go from "laisser-faire", to participation in governance of the string, to joint initiatives etc.

- If more than one city has the same name, all benefit equally from the nom-objection instrument, as all have a say.

- Potential issues to be further analysed:

a) cases where issues arose with the non-objection letter as such. Improvements to the non-objection letter system.

b) ...

Hope this is helpful

best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:49:39 MESZ An: liz.williams@auda.org.au <liz.williams@auda.org.au> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Dear Liz

Thanks, but one has to reflect all views when you try such a thing. You just summarize the views of those people with your views. And you conclude it with your initial statement (100 messages ago) on the non-objection-letter, without having considered the arguments of others... that, you may concede, is not quite objective...

To be short: we have four very capable co-leads and staff, let's them do their job and produce a third-party summary of the discussion so far.

Best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:43:24 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Jorge

If you want to do a better job of summarising things as we track along, go right ahead. That task is always open to anyone on the group, the co-chairs and ICANN staff supporting the work. I really don't give a fig who does it.it just needs to be done so that we are moving along diligently. Otherwise we end up in ridiculous circles of oneupmanship which I don't care for.

I've done more than enough in my time of trying to read rough consensus, considering differing points of view and trying to come up with best practice that I really don't mind who does what.

It all needs to be fed back to the bigger SubPro group and then to the GNSO and then to the Board and then to public comment so we are MILES from any final position.

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> www.auda.org.au [2]<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 7 May 2018, at 2:34 pm, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

Dear Liz

I guess that you mean that this is a good summary of the opinions expressed by some, but which do not represent those expressed by many others (e.g. Alexander, Kathrin, Nick, Giacomo, Marita, Yrjo, Nouar, Kavouss... and I).

Let's leave these summaries to the co-leads. Otherwise we will have many different summaries.

best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 02:00:49 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> Cc: gnso-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>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Hello everyone

I am really pleased that this thread has yielded such a diverse set of perspectives. I wanted to, if we could, try to wrap up some things that we may or may not have consensus on so that we can discuss that on the next call. That might help the co-chairs and staff?

1. We want to continue to have clear, objective and fact based policies associated with the assessment of all TLD applications. This, of course, includes geographic terms.

2. We need to have clear application evaluation procedures that ensure that the ICANN Board, GAC, applicants understand exactly what their respective roles are. In a multi-stakeholder environment, no one has primacy over another. The GAC is very different from national governments and can only provide collective consensus advice to the ICANN Board. The GAC has no operational role. However, individual member governments may have different opinions about specific applications for TLDs.

These two things are no different from what we had hoped would happen in previous rounds. Where we have diverged is that the role of the Board and GAC and the ICANN organisation dramatically changed the implementation of the evaluation process for many applicants. Interference in the evaluation process was problematic and unfair as has been demonstrated in numerous examples. We need to address that unfairness in implementation suggestions.

For the next round, I would suggest that we, at a policy level, do not change 1 above. However, we should have plenty to say on the implementation of those policies because, given the level of disagreement/misunderstanding/positioning, we are not in agreement.

From listening to the discussion I think we have general consensus that

1. Geographic terms are important for the next round of applications for many reasons which are consistent with ICANN's Mission and Core Values.

2. That the expansion of "lists" of things is not an effective or useful or reliable way of determining what could be in or out beyond ISO 3166. Expansion of the application of national law into the international realm of the domain name system is neither effective or appropriate. We already have in place numerous elements which can be relied upon by applications and evaluators to fairly and predictably "treat" applications for TLD labels that may have geographic significance.

3. We agree that governments may be concerned with geographic terms but they do not own them or control or have a right of veto over an application. Governments are legitimate applicants for geographic terms. They are also legitimate objectors, like any one else, to applications.

Looking forward to hearing other views but I hope that we, finally, get rid of the "non-objection" artifact which can be capricious (if a government changes), subjective (because we haven't successfully articulated what non-objection looks like on a consistent basis), and it is much easier to either support something or object to it (using clearly set out guidelines).

Best wishes.

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.williams@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au [2]<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 7 May 2018, at 9:24 am, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote:

I want to thank Alexander for so ably expressing a view that I can really resonate with. Cities are as unique and culturally relevant as countries -- many of them have been around longer than the countries they now reside in (Istanbul). Would it be possible to create a list of cities that are large enough that their names should be treated as reserved for the use of the people of that city to identify themselves just as countries do through ccTLD's? Could we set the conditions that would lead to such a list? Inevitably, some cities would be excluded and seek inclusion. But we have to start somewhere.

Marita Moll

On 5/5/2018 1:41 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Robin,

I think you and I share a certain "distain" for regulation exercised through "Governments". You write:

"It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis."

You and Greg are seemingly working off the assumption that somebody wants to help GOVERNMENTS to "protect" their territories in the DNS. But why don't you and Greg ever think about THE PEOPLE? I honestly couldn't care less about Governments - but I do care very much and very passionate about PEOPLE. And we need to make sure that the constituents of a city are looped into the decision what happens to their city name in the DNS. In the 2012 AGB this was facilitated by CITY Governments (NOT national Governments). Forget for a moment about "Governments" - and root for THE PEOPLE: How to protect THEM? NOT from "misrepresentation" - but from the ability to identify themselves through city gTLD domain names (see the equivalent via ccTLDs).

Hence my proposal to REQUIRE a "community priority application" if the string is identical to a ("sizeable") city: I want that THE PEOPLE in a city are INVOLVED. Not enough to just go to the major, promise 85% of (diluted) "profits" - and then blanket the space with hundreds of non-managed city gTLDs applied for to "just make big bucks"; instead of having locally managed and promoted CITY initiatives that THRIVE!

Thanks,

Alexander.berlin

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 7:20 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> 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> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:

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.

I think Greg's suggestion to focus on intended use is a very helpful suggestion for our work. It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis. We don't want to encourage a misrepresentation, but we also are obligated to recognize competing legitimate interests to the same term and in cases where there is no misrepresentation connected with the intended use of TLD with geographic meaning, those applicants should be allowed to go forward, unless they violate international law on some other ground.

Thanks, Robin

On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:

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><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><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><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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>>www.auda.org.au [2]<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.

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<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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/>

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:32 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>, 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<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>, 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>> <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/><http://France.com<http://france.com/>>.

Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<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@rodenbaugh.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>, 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.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<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>>>>,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: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:gnso-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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/>

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto: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@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@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:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>>; 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.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.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.inter.net>>>>;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: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:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-new gtld-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<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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/>

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:28 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto: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-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@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@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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<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<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: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.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@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: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: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

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<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: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.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@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@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@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@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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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@schubert.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<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: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: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>>>> 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-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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@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><mailto: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<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: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:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-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><mailto: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<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.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.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.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.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.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.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>>>> www.auda.org.au [2]<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/>><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: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: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>>>> 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: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: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>>>> 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: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: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>>>>

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

Links: ------ [1] http://www.dotzon.consulting [2] http://www.auda.org.au

Well, if the idea was to avoid “dueling summaries” and what Liz called “ridiculous circles of oneupmanship”, we have failed. However, if the idea was to express the view that Liz’s summary wasn’t neutral, through imitation, exaggeration, and parody, this has succeeded brilliantly. I’m fairly sure this doesn’t help consensus-building, unless we take this for what it is — a platform representing the views of one camp. Helpful in its own way, but it would more helpful if accurately labeled. Greg On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 1:43 AM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

Dear all,

Here is another summary of the issue, which could help co-leads in preparing their third party-recap:

- TLDs are unique. If a string composed by one name as such is delegated others with an interest on that name will be prevented from using that name.

- Distinctions based on intended use is therefore not helpful. „Intended use“ limitations also imply impractical enforcement challenges that would be posed by any circumventing on intended use by third parties, such as registrants...

- city names are geographic terms that have political, historical, economic (sometimes religious) and social connotations for the populations, communities affected.

- city governments have responsibilities over their names as their primary identifiers in social, national, political and economic interactions and as identification of their peoples.

- Their responsibilities are laid down in different public policy and law instruments (in Switzerland we have seen that they, inter alia, have rights on their names under civil right). The city name is subject to general/public interests representent by that city government. City governments act according to the laws of the countries they are established and accountable under them.

- City names as such are not subject to rights by private parties. A monopolization of a city name by private parties is forbidden under laws pertaining to business names and trademark registration in a number of jurisdictions. Trademark interests to city names refer normally to composed names („lucerne foods“) and are limited to specific products and services in certain jurisdictions, in order to avoid consumer confusion. They protect against others using that name in that category of products or services who generate confusion in the consumer. (please refer to Nicks Email on this).

- Applicants for a string (eg of a city name) have a specific and direct interest to their application, are interested in certainty and in not receiving objections when they are well into an application process. Such applicants are aware of ICANN and its procedures, as this is a prerequisite for obtaining the delegation.

- Applicants will usually be aware that the string they wish to apply for is also a city name. If not they can do a search and identify potential cities with that name. ICANN and GAC Members can help identifying relevant public authorities (AGB 2012).

- City Governments (hundreds of thousands worlwide) do not know ICANN. They cannot be expected to monitor its proceedings and actively look for their city names being applied for and to object within deadlines they ignore.

- Non-objection-letters worked generally well under the 2012 AGB, in 60+ cases.

- Only few cases (1-2) have been referred to where potential issues with the „non-objection“ as such were identified.

- Further study of such cases could be warranted, considering evidence from the parties involved, i.e. both applicants and relevant public authorities. This analysis could warrant identifying improvements to the non-objection-letter. At the same time, the fact that no agreement was found between applicants and city governments may have different, legitimate causes.

- Non-objection letters fairly puts the burden on the party with specific and direct interests in the application to reach out to the relevant public authorities of the corresponding city. It gets those specific interest-holders on a table with the representatives of the public interest of the people living in the city with that name. This system allows for different solutions to be worked out between the parties, which may go from „laisser-faire“, to participation in governance of the string, to joint initiatives etc.

- If more than one city has the same name, all benefit equally from the nom-objection instrument, as all have a say.

- Potential issues to be further analysed:

a) cases where issues arose with the non-objection letter as such. Improvements to the non-objection letter system.

b) ...

Hope this is helpful

best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:49:39 MESZ An: liz.williams@auda.org.au <liz.williams@auda.org.au> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Dear Liz

Thanks, but one has to reflect all views when you try such a thing. You just summarize the views of those people with your views. And you conclude it with your initial statement (100 messages ago) on the non-objection-letter, without having considered the arguments of others... that, you may concede, is not quite objective...

To be short: we have four very capable co-leads and staff, let’s them do their job and produce a third-party summary of the discussion so far.

Best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:43:24 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Jorge

If you want to do a better job of summarising things as we track along, go right ahead. That task is always open to anyone on the group, the co-chairs and ICANN staff supporting the work. I really don’t give a fig who does it…it just needs to be done so that we are moving along diligently. Otherwise we end up in ridiculous circles of oneupmanship which I don’t care for.

I’ve done more than enough in my time of trying to read rough consensus, considering differing points of view and trying to come up with best practice that I really don’t mind who does what.

It all needs to be fed back to the bigger SubPro group and then to the GNSO and then to the Board and then to public comment so we are MILES from any final position.

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> 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 7 May 2018, at 2:34 pm, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

Dear Liz

I guess that you mean that this is a good summary of the opinions expressed by some, but which do not represent those expressed by many others (e.g. Alexander, Kathrin, Nick, Giacomo, Marita, Yrjo, Nouar, Kavouss... and I).

Let‘s leave these summaries to the co-leads. Otherwise we will have many different summaries.

best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto: liz.williams@auda.org.au>> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 02:00:49 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> Cc: gnso-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>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Hello everyone

I am really pleased that this thread has yielded such a diverse set of perspectives. I wanted to, if we could, try to wrap up some things that we may or may not have consensus on so that we can discuss that on the next call. That might help the co-chairs and staff?

1. We want to continue to have clear, objective and fact based policies associated with the assessment of all TLD applications. This, of course, includes geographic terms.

2. We need to have clear application evaluation procedures that ensure that the ICANN Board, GAC, applicants understand exactly what their respective roles are. In a multi-stakeholder environment, no one has primacy over another. The GAC is very different from national governments and can only provide collective consensus advice to the ICANN Board. The GAC has no operational role. However, individual member governments may have different opinions about specific applications for TLDs.

These two things are no different from what we had hoped would happen in previous rounds. Where we have diverged is that the role of the Board and GAC and the ICANN organisation dramatically changed the implementation of the evaluation process for many applicants. Interference in the evaluation process was problematic and unfair as has been demonstrated in numerous examples. We need to address that unfairness in implementation suggestions.

For the next round, I would suggest that we, at a policy level, do not change 1 above. However, we should have plenty to say on the implementation of those policies because, given the level of disagreement/misunderstanding/positioning, we are not in agreement.

From listening to the discussion I think we have general consensus that

1. Geographic terms are important for the next round of applications for many reasons which are consistent with ICANN’s Mission and Core Values.

2. That the expansion of “lists” of things is not an effective or useful or reliable way of determining what could be in or out beyond ISO 3166. Expansion of the application of national law into the international realm of the domain name system is neither effective or appropriate. We already have in place numerous elements which can be relied upon by applications and evaluators to fairly and predictably “treat” applications for TLD labels that may have geographic significance.

3. We agree that governments may be concerned with geographic terms but they do not own them or control or have a right of veto over an application. Governments are legitimate applicants for geographic terms. They are also legitimate objectors, like any one else, to applications.

Looking forward to hearing other views but I hope that we, finally, get rid of the “non-objection” artifact which can be capricious (if a government changes), subjective (because we haven’t successfully articulated what non-objection looks like on a consistent basis), and it is much easier to either support something or object to it (using clearly set out guidelines).

Best wishes.

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.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 7 May 2018, at 9:24 am, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto: mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote:

I want to thank Alexander for so ably expressing a view that I can really resonate with. Cities are as unique and culturally relevant as countries -- many of them have been around longer than the countries they now reside in (Istanbul). Would it be possible to create a list of cities that are large enough that their names should be treated as reserved for the use of the people of that city to identify themselves just as countries do through ccTLD's? Could we set the conditions that would lead to such a list? Inevitably, some cities would be excluded and seek inclusion. But we have to start somewhere.

Marita Moll

On 5/5/2018 1:41 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Robin,

I think you and I share a certain “distain” for regulation exercised through “Governments”. You write:

“It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don’t, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis.”

You and Greg are seemingly working off the assumption that somebody wants to help GOVERNMENTS to “protect” their territories in the DNS. But why don’t you and Greg ever think about THE PEOPLE? I honestly couldn’t care less about Governments – but I do care very much and very passionate about PEOPLE. And we need to make sure that the constituents of a city are looped into the decision what happens to their city name in the DNS. In the 2012 AGB this was facilitated by CITY Governments (NOT national Governments). Forget for a moment about “Governments” – and root for THE PEOPLE: How to protect THEM? NOT from “misrepresentation” – but from the ability to identify themselves through city gTLD domain names (see the equivalent via ccTLDs).

Hence my proposal to REQUIRE a “community priority application” if the string is identical to a (“sizeable”) city: I want that THE PEOPLE in a city are INVOLVED. Not enough to just go to the major, promise 85% of (diluted) “profits” – and then blanket the space with hundreds of non-managed city gTLDs applied for to “just make big bucks”; instead of having locally managed and promoted CITY initiatives that THRIVE!

Thanks,

Alexander.berlin

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 7:20 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com

...

...

<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> 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> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:

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.

I think Greg’s suggestion to focus on intended use is a very helpful suggestion for our work. It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don’t, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis. We don’t want to encourage a misrepresentation, but we also are obligated to recognize competing legitimate interests to the same term and in cases where there is no misrepresentation connected with the intended use of TLD with geographic meaning, those applicants should be allowed to go forward, unless they violate international law on some other ground.

Thanks, Robin

On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:

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><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><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><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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto: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/>>

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<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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/>

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:32 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>, 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 <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>, 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>> <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/><http://France.com<http://france.com/>>.

Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<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@rodenbaugh.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>, 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.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<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>>>>, 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: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: gnso-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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/>

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto: 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@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com

...

...

<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto: mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>><mailto: mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto: mike@rodenbaugh.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@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:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>>; 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.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.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.inter.net>>>>; 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: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:gnso-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<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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/>

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:28 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto: 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-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@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@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@icann.org><mailto: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<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<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: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.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@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: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: 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

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<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: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.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@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@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@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@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@icann.org><mailto: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto: 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@schubert.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<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: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: 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>>>> 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-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@icann.org><mailto: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@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><mailto: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<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: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:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto: gnso-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><mailto: 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<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.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.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.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.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.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.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/>><; 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: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: 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>>>> 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: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: 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>>>> 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: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: 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>>>>

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: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: 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>>>> 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: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: 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>>>> 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: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<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

Dear all I agree with Giacomo Best Olga El 7 may. 2018, a la(s) 15:47, Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone@ebu.ch> escribió:

Dear Greg,

After having read your message, I re-read Jorge’s summary. I cannot find anything that looks like “not neutral, through imitation, exaggeration, and parody”. Could you explain me where do you find this lack of respect in Jorge’s contribution ? I think we are trying as WG to debate calmly to find solutions to problems that have origin in the existing differences among jurisdiction and legislation across the world. I would recommend everybody to stick to facts and to act on good faith. If we do not, the whole logic of the exercise of the WG will be gone.

Thank you in advance to everybody to keep this place of debate as fair as possible.

Giacomo

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: lundi 7 mai 2018 17:43 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Well, if the idea was to avoid “dueling summaries” and what Liz called “ridiculous circles of oneupmanship”, we have failed.

However, if the idea was to express the view that Liz’s summary wasn’t neutral, through imitation, exaggeration, and parody, this has succeeded brilliantly.

I’m fairly sure this doesn’t help consensus-building, unless we take this for what it is — a platform representing the views of one camp. Helpful in its own way, but it would more helpful if accurately labeled.

Greg

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 1:43 AM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear all,

Here is another summary of the issue, which could help co-leads in preparing their third party-recap:

- TLDs are unique. If a string composed by one name as such is delegated others with an interest on that name will be prevented from using that name.

- Distinctions based on intended use is therefore not helpful. „Intended use“ limitations also imply impractical enforcement challenges that would be posed by any circumventing on intended use by third parties, such as registrants...

- city names are geographic terms that have political, historical, economic (sometimes religious) and social connotations for the populations, communities affected.

- city governments have responsibilities over their names as their primary identifiers in social, national, political and economic interactions and as identification of their peoples.

- Their responsibilities are laid down in different public policy and law instruments (in Switzerland we have seen that they, inter alia, have rights on their names under civil right). The city name is subject to general/public interests representent by that city government. City governments act according to the laws of the countries they are established and accountable under them.

- City names as such are not subject to rights by private parties. A monopolization of a city name by private parties is forbidden under laws pertaining to business names and trademark registration in a number of jurisdictions. Trademark interests to city names refer normally to composed names („lucerne foods“) and are limited to specific products and services in certain jurisdictions, in order to avoid consumer confusion. They protect against others using that name in that category of products or services who generate confusion in the consumer. (please refer to Nicks Email on this).

- Applicants for a string (eg of a city name) have a specific and direct interest to their application, are interested in certainty and in not receiving objections when they are well into an application process. Such applicants are aware of ICANN and its procedures, as this is a prerequisite for obtaining the delegation.

- Applicants will usually be aware that the string they wish to apply for is also a city name. If not they can do a search and identify potential cities with that name. ICANN and GAC Members can help identifying relevant public authorities (AGB 2012).

- City Governments (hundreds of thousands worlwide) do not know ICANN. They cannot be expected to monitor its proceedings and actively look for their city names being applied for and to object within deadlines they ignore.

- Non-objection-letters worked generally well under the 2012 AGB, in 60+ cases.

- Only few cases (1-2) have been referred to where potential issues with the „non-objection“ as such were identified.

- Further study of such cases could be warranted, considering evidence from the parties involved, i.e. both applicants and relevant public authorities. This analysis could warrant identifying improvements to the non-objection-letter. At the same time, the fact that no agreement was found between applicants and city governments may have different, legitimate causes.

- Non-objection letters fairly puts the burden on the party with specific and direct interests in the application to reach out to the relevant public authorities of the corresponding city. It gets those specific interest-holders on a table with the representatives of the public interest of the people living in the city with that name. This system allows for different solutions to be worked out between the parties, which may go from „laisser-faire“, to participation in governance of the string, to joint initiatives etc.

- If more than one city has the same name, all benefit equally from the nom-objection instrument, as all have a say.

- Potential issues to be further analysed:

a) cases where issues arose with the non-objection letter as such. Improvements to the non-objection letter system.

b) ...

Hope this is helpful

best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:49:39 MESZ An: liz.williams@auda.org.au <liz.williams@auda.org.au> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Dear Liz

Thanks, but one has to reflect all views when you try such a thing. You just summarize the views of those people with your views. And you conclude it with your initial statement (100 messages ago) on the non-objection-letter, without having considered the arguments of others... that, you may concede, is not quite objective...

To be short: we have four very capable co-leads and staff, let’s them do their job and produce a third-party summary of the discussion so far.

Best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:43:24 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Jorge

If you want to do a better job of summarising things as we track along, go right ahead. That task is always open to anyone on the group, the co-chairs and ICANN staff supporting the work. I really don’t give a fig who does it…it just needs to be done so that we are moving along diligently. Otherwise we end up in ridiculous circles of oneupmanship which I don’t care for.

I’ve done more than enough in my time of trying to read rough consensus, considering differing points of view and trying to come up with best practice that I really don’t mind who does what.

It all needs to be fed back to the bigger SubPro group and then to the GNSO and then to the Board and then to public comment so we are MILES from any final position.

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> 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 7 May 2018, at 2:34 pm, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

Dear Liz

I guess that you mean that this is a good summary of the opinions expressed by some, but which do not represent those expressed by many others (e.g. Alexander, Kathrin, Nick, Giacomo, Marita, Yrjo, Nouar, Kavouss... and I).

Let‘s leave these summaries to the co-leads. Otherwise we will have many different summaries.

best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 02:00:49 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> Cc: gnso-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>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Hello everyone

I am really pleased that this thread has yielded such a diverse set of perspectives. I wanted to, if we could, try to wrap up some things that we may or may not have consensus on so that we can discuss that on the next call. That might help the co-chairs and staff?

1. We want to continue to have clear, objective and fact based policies associated with the assessment of all TLD applications. This, of course, includes geographic terms.

2. We need to have clear application evaluation procedures that ensure that the ICANN Board, GAC, applicants understand exactly what their respective roles are. In a multi-stakeholder environment, no one has primacy over another. The GAC is very different from national governments and can only provide collective consensus advice to the ICANN Board. The GAC has no operational role. However, individual member governments may have different opinions about specific applications for TLDs.

These two things are no different from what we had hoped would happen in previous rounds. Where we have diverged is that the role of the Board and GAC and the ICANN organisation dramatically changed the implementation of the evaluation process for many applicants. Interference in the evaluation process was problematic and unfair as has been demonstrated in numerous examples. We need to address that unfairness in implementation suggestions.

For the next round, I would suggest that we, at a policy level, do not change 1 above. However, we should have plenty to say on the implementation of those policies because, given the level of disagreement/misunderstanding/positioning, we are not in agreement.

From listening to the discussion I think we have general consensus that

1. Geographic terms are important for the next round of applications for many reasons which are consistent with ICANN’s Mission and Core Values.

2. That the expansion of “lists” of things is not an effective or useful or reliable way of determining what could be in or out beyond ISO 3166. Expansion of the application of national law into the international realm of the domain name system is neither effective or appropriate. We already have in place numerous elements which can be relied upon by applications and evaluators to fairly and predictably “treat” applications for TLD labels that may have geographic significance.

3. We agree that governments may be concerned with geographic terms but they do not own them or control or have a right of veto over an application. Governments are legitimate applicants for geographic terms. They are also legitimate objectors, like any one else, to applications.

Looking forward to hearing other views but I hope that we, finally, get rid of the “non-objection” artifact which can be capricious (if a government changes), subjective (because we haven’t successfully articulated what non-objection looks like on a consistent basis), and it is much easier to either support something or object to it (using clearly set out guidelines).

Best wishes.

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.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 7 May 2018, at 9:24 am, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote:

I want to thank Alexander for so ably expressing a view that I can really resonate with. Cities are as unique and culturally relevant as countries -- many of them have been around longer than the countries they now reside in (Istanbul). Would it be possible to create a list of cities that are large enough that their names should be treated as reserved for the use of the people of that city to identify themselves just as countries do through ccTLD's? Could we set the conditions that would lead to such a list? Inevitably, some cities would be excluded and seek inclusion. But we have to start somewhere.

Marita Moll

On 5/5/2018 1:41 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Robin,

I think you and I share a certain “distain” for regulation exercised through “Governments”. You write:

“It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don’t, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis.”

You and Greg are seemingly working off the assumption that somebody wants to help GOVERNMENTS to “protect” their territories in the DNS. But why don’t you and Greg ever think about THE PEOPLE? I honestly couldn’t care less about Governments – but I do care very much and very passionate about PEOPLE. And we need to make sure that the constituents of a city are looped into the decision what happens to their city name in the DNS. In the 2012 AGB this was facilitated by CITY Governments (NOT national Governments). Forget for a moment about “Governments” – and root for THE PEOPLE: How to protect THEM? NOT from “misrepresentation” – but from the ability to identify themselves through city gTLD domain names (see the equivalent via ccTLDs).

Hence my proposal to REQUIRE a “community priority application” if the string is identical to a (“sizeable”) city: I want that THE PEOPLE in a city are INVOLVED. Not enough to just go to the major, promise 85% of (diluted) “profits” – and then blanket the space with hundreds of non-managed city gTLDs applied for to “just make big bucks”; instead of having locally managed and promoted CITY initiatives that THRIVE!

Thanks,

Alexander.berlin

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 7:20 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> 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> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:

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.

I think Greg’s suggestion to focus on intended use is a very helpful suggestion for our work. It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don’t, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis. We don’t want to encourage a misrepresentation, but we also are obligated to recognize competing legitimate interests to the same term and in cases where there is no misrepresentation connected with the intended use of TLD with geographic meaning, those applicants should be allowed to go forward, unless they violate international law on some other ground.

Thanks, Robin

On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:

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><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><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><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.williams@auda.org.au><mailto: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/>>

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<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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/>

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:32 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>, 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<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>, 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>> <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/><http://France.com<http://france.com/>>.

Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<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@rodenbaugh.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>, 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.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<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>>>>,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: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:gnso-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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/>

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto: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@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.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:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@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:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>>; 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.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.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.inter.net>>>>;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: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:gnso-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<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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/>

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:28 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.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<mailto: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-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@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@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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<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<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: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.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@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: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: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

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<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: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.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@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@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@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@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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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@schubert.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<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: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: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>>>> 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-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@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@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><mailto: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<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: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:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-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><mailto: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<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.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.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.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.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.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.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/>><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: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: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>>>> 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: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: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>>>> 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: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: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>>>>

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: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: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>>>> 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: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: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>>>> 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: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<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 ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway **************************************************

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

Hi all, I would like to express strong support for Jorge and Nicks comments raised earlier in this thread. I also support Katrins comments on “intended use” and the non-objection- letter. However caution must be taken. Thanks and best regards, Vernatius EZEAMA, Our Rights On Mon, May 7, 2018 10:44 pm, Carlos Raul Gutierrez wrote:

+1 Giacomo

--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez

El 2018-05-07 12:47, Mazzone, Giacomo escribió:

...

Dear Greg,

After having read your message, I re-read Jorge's summary. I cannot find anything that looks like "not neutral, through imitation, exaggeration, and parody".

Could you explain me where do you find this lack of respect in Jorge's contribution ?

I think we are trying as WG to debate calmly to find solutions to problems that have origin in the existing differences among jurisdiction and legislation across the world.

I would recommend everybody to stick to facts and to act on good faith. If we do not, the whole logic of the exercise of the WG will be gone.

Thank you in advance to everybody to keep this place of debate as fair as possible.

Giacomo

FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Greg Shatan SENT: lundi 7 mai 2018 17:43 TO: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch CC: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Well, if the idea was to avoid "dueling summaries" and what Liz called "ridiculous circles of oneupmanship", we have failed.

However, if the idea was to express the view that Liz's summary wasn't neutral, through imitation, exaggeration, and parody, this has succeeded brilliantly.

I'm fairly sure this doesn't help consensus-building, unless we take this for what it is -- a platform representing the views of one camp. Helpful in its own way, but it would more helpful if accurately labeled.

Greg

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 1:43 AM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

...

Dear all,

Here is another summary of the issue, which could help co-leads in preparing their third party-recap:

- TLDs are unique. If a string composed by one name as such is delegated others with an interest on that name will be prevented from using that name.

- Distinctions based on intended use is therefore not helpful. „Intended use" limitations also imply impractical enforcement challenges that would be posed by any circumventing on intended use by third parties, such as registrants...

- city names are geographic terms that have political, historical, economic (sometimes religious) and social connotations for the populations, communities affected.

- city governments have responsibilities over their names as their primary identifiers in social, national, political and economic interactions and as identification of their peoples.

- Their responsibilities are laid down in different public policy and law instruments (in Switzerland we have seen that they, inter alia, have rights on their names under civil right). The city name is subject to general/public interests representent by that city government. City governments act according to the laws of the countries they are established and accountable under them.

- City names as such are not subject to rights by private parties. A monopolization of a city name by private parties is forbidden under laws pertaining to business names and trademark registration in a number of jurisdictions. Trademark interests to city names refer normally to composed names („lucerne foods") and are limited to specific products and services in certain jurisdictions, in order to avoid consumer confusion. They protect against others using that name in that category of products or services who generate confusion in the consumer. (please refer to Nicks Email on this).

- Applicants for a string (eg of a city name) have a specific and direct interest to their application, are interested in certainty and in not receiving objections when they are well into an application process. Such applicants are aware of ICANN and its procedures, as this is a prerequisite for obtaining the delegation.

- Applicants will usually be aware that the string they wish to apply for is also a city name. If not they can do a search and identify potential cities with that name. ICANN and GAC Members can help identifying relevant public authorities (AGB 2012).

- City Governments (hundreds of thousands worlwide) do not know ICANN. They cannot be expected to monitor its proceedings and actively look for their city names being applied for and to object within deadlines they ignore.

- Non-objection-letters worked generally well under the 2012 AGB, in 60+ cases.

- Only few cases (1-2) have been referred to where potential issues with the „non-objection" as such were identified.

- Further study of such cases could be warranted, considering evidence from the parties involved, i.e. both applicants and relevant public authorities. This analysis could warrant identifying improvements to the non-objection-letter. At the same time, the fact that no agreement was found between applicants and city governments may have different, legitimate causes.

- Non-objection letters fairly puts the burden on the party with specific and direct interests in the application to reach out to the relevant public authorities of the corresponding city. It gets those specific interest-holders on a table with the representatives of the public interest of the people living in the city with that name. This system allows for different solutions to be worked out between the parties, which may go from „laisser-faire", to participation in governance of the string, to joint initiatives etc.

- If more than one city has the same name, all benefit equally from the nom-objection instrument, as all have a say.

- Potential issues to be further analysed:

a) cases where issues arose with the non-objection letter as such. Improvements to the non-objection letter system.

b) ...

Hope this is helpful

best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:49:39 MESZ An: liz.williams@auda.org.au <liz.williams@auda.org.au> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Dear Liz

Thanks, but one has to reflect all views when you try such a thing. You just summarize the views of those people with your views. And you conclude it with your initial statement (100 messages ago) on the non-objection-letter, without having considered the arguments of others... that, you may concede, is not quite objective...

To be short: we have four very capable co-leads and staff, let's them do their job and produce a third-party summary of the discussion so far.

Best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 06:43:24 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: leonard obonyo via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Jorge

If you want to do a better job of summarising things as we track along, go right ahead. That task is always open to anyone on the group, the co-chairs and ICANN staff supporting the work. I really don't give a fig who does it...it just needs to be done so that we are moving along diligently. Otherwise we end up in ridiculous circles of oneupmanship which I don't care for.

I've done more than enough in my time of trying to read rough consensus, considering differing points of view and trying to come up with best practice that I really don't mind who does what.

It all needs to be fed back to the bigger SubPro group and then to the GNSO and then to the Board and then to public comment so we are MILES from any final position.

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> www.auda.org.au [1]<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 7 May 2018, at 2:34 pm, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

Dear Liz

I guess that you mean that this is a good summary of the opinions expressed by some, but which do not represent those expressed by many others (e.g. Alexander, Kathrin, Nick, Giacomo, Marita, Yrjo, Nouar, Kavouss... and I).

Let's leave these summaries to the co-leads. Otherwise we will have many different summaries.

best

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> Datum: 7. Mai 2018 um 02:00:49 MESZ An: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> Cc: gnso-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>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

Hello everyone

I am really pleased that this thread has yielded such a diverse set of perspectives. I wanted to, if we could, try to wrap up some things that we may or may not have consensus on so that we can discuss that on the next call. That might help the co-chairs and staff?

1. We want to continue to have clear, objective and fact based policies associated with the assessment of all TLD applications. This, of course, includes geographic terms.

2. We need to have clear application evaluation procedures that ensure that the ICANN Board, GAC, applicants understand exactly what their respective roles are. In a multi-stakeholder environment, no one has primacy over another. The GAC is very different from national governments and can only provide collective consensus advice to the ICANN Board. The GAC has no operational role. However, individual member governments may have different opinions about specific applications for TLDs.

These two things are no different from what we had hoped would happen in previous rounds. Where we have diverged is that the role of the Board and GAC and the ICANN organisation dramatically changed the implementation of the evaluation process for many applicants. Interference in the evaluation process was problematic and unfair as has been demonstrated in numerous examples. We need to address that unfairness in implementation suggestions.

For the next round, I would suggest that we, at a policy level, do not change 1 above. However, we should have plenty to say on the implementation of those policies because, given the level of disagreement/misunderstanding/positioning, we are not in agreement.

From listening to the discussion I think we have general consensus that

1. Geographic terms are important for the next round of applications for many reasons which are consistent with ICANN's Mission and Core Values.

2. That the expansion of "lists" of things is not an effective or useful or reliable way of determining what could be in or out beyond ISO 3166. Expansion of the application of national law into the international realm of the domain name system is neither effective or appropriate. We already have in place numerous elements which can be relied upon by applications and evaluators to fairly and predictably "treat" applications for TLD labels that may have geographic significance.

3. We agree that governments may be concerned with geographic terms but they do not own them or control or have a right of veto over an application. Governments are legitimate applicants for geographic terms. They are also legitimate objectors, like any one else, to applications.

Looking forward to hearing other views but I hope that we, finally, get rid of the "non-objection" artifact which can be capricious (if a government changes), subjective (because we haven't successfully articulated what non-objection looks like on a consistent basis), and it is much easier to either support something or object to it (using clearly set out guidelines).

Best wishes.

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. williams@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au [1]<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 7 May 2018, at 9:24 am, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter. net>> wrote:

I want to thank Alexander for so ably expressing a view that I can really resonate with. Cities are as unique and culturally relevant as countries -- many of them have been around longer than the countries they now reside in (Istanbul). Would it be possible to create a list of cities that are large enough that their names should be treated as reserved for the use of the people of that city to identify themselves just as countries do through ccTLD's? Could we set the conditions that would lead to such a list? Inevitably, some cities would be excluded and seek inclusion. But we have to start somewhere.

Marita Moll

On 5/5/2018 1:41 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: Robin,

I think you and I share a certain "distain" for regulation exercised through "Governments". You write:

"It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis."

You and Greg are seemingly working off the assumption that somebody wants to help GOVERNMENTS to "protect" their territories in the DNS. But why don't you and Greg ever think about THE PEOPLE? I honestly couldn't care less about Governments - but I do care very much and very passionate about PEOPLE. And we need to make sure that the constituents of a city are looped into the decision what happens to their city name in the DNS. In the 2012 AGB this was facilitated by CITY Governments (NOT national Governments). Forget for a moment about "Governments" - and root for THE PEOPLE: How to protect THEM? NOT from "misrepresentation" - but from the ability to identify themselves through city gTLD domain names (see the equivalent via ccTLDs).

Hence my proposal to REQUIRE a "community priority application" if the string is identical to a ("sizeable") city: I want that THE PEOPLE in a city are INVOLVED. Not enough to just go to the major, promise 85% of (diluted) "profits" - and then blanket the space with hundreds of non-managed city gTLDs applied for to "just make big bucks"; instead of having locally managed and promoted CITY initiatives that THRIVE!

Thanks,

Alexander.berlin

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 7:20 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:greg shatanipc@gmail.com> 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> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conference call: city names

On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregs hatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:

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.

I think Greg's suggestion to focus on intended use is a very helpful suggestion for our work. It allows us to focus on whether or not someone is trying to misrepresent that they speak for a govt when they don't, and I think that misrepresentation should be key in our analysis. We don't want to encourage a misrepresentation, but we also are obligated to recognize competing legitimate interests to the same term and in cases where there is no misrepresentation connected with the intended use of TLD with geographic meaning, those applicants should be allowed to go forward, unless they violate international law on some other ground.

Thanks, Robin

On May 3, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregs hatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:

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><mail to: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><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>< 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. williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.will iams@auda.org.au>>www.auda.org.au [1]<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.

On 4 May 2018, at 4:50 am, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbau gh.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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/>

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:32 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mail to:Jorge.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@rodenbau gh.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><mail to:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregs hatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>, mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.n et<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> <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><m ailto:gnso-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/><http://France.com<http://france.com/>> .

Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<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><mail to:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><m ailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.c h>>>> 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@rodenbau gh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto :mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbau gh.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><mail to:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><m ailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.c h>>>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregs hatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatan ipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gm ail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>, mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.n et<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>>> <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<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>

...

...

,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@ica nn.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgt ld-wg-wt5@icann.org>>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mail to:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><m ailto: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.or g>>>> 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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/>

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mail to:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><m ailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.c h>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.adm in.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bako m.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@ba kom.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@r odenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@r odenbaugh.com>>><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.co m><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>><mailto:mik e@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.c om<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><mail to:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><m ailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.c h>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.adm in.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bako m.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@ba kom.admin.ch>>>>> Cc: Gregory S. Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregs hatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatan ipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gm ail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail. com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<ma ilto: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<m ailto: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:mmol l@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailt o:mmoll@ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.ne t><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>>>;gnso-newgtld-w g-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-newg tld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-ne wgtld-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><mailto:g nso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailt o:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mai lto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-new gtld-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 [2]<http://city.com/><http://city.com/><http://city.com<http://city.c om/><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/><http://rodenbaugh.com/>

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:28 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mail to:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><m ailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.c h>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.adm in.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bako m.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@ba kom.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-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<m ailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><m ailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt 5-bounces@icann.org>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<m ailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-w t5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>><m ailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt 5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mai lto: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<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmol l@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@c a.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.int er.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-wt 5@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<mailt o:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.or g<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@ic ann.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<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>><mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmol l@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@c a.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.int er.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-bou nces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:g nso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bou nces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><mailto:g nso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounc es@icann.org>>>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<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-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-boun ces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gn so-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>>>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert

<alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexa nder@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>><mailto:alexander @schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schub ert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>><mailto:alexander@schubert.b erlin<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><m ailto: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: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@ica nn.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-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<m ailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org><m ailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt 5-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@dave cake.net><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net>>>><mailt o:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net><mailto:dave@davecake.ne t<mailto:dave@davecake.net>><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@dav ecake.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-wt 5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-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<mail to:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.o rg<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@i cann.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@dave cake.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>><mailto:dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@dave cake.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 .williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>><mailto:liz.wi lliams@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.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@aud a.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.a u<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. williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>><mailto:liz.wil liams@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.or g.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au><mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au <mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>>>> www.auda.org.au [1]<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/>><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><ma ilto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.o rg>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@ icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-w g-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-n ewgtld-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@ican n.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><ma ilto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.o rg>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@ icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-w g-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-n ewgtld-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@ican n.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><m ailto: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: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@ica nn.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><ma ilto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.o rg>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@ icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-w g-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-n ewgtld-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@ican n.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><ma ilto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.o rg>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@ icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-w g-wt5@icann.org>>><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-n ewgtld-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@ican n.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><ma ilto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.o rg>> 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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [3]

_______________________________________________ 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

-------------------------

************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Links: ------ [1] http://www.auda.org.au [2] http://city.com [3] 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

Good morning:

Allow me to respond to and comment on our recent thread. Much of what I have to contribute today has already been mentioned in recent PDP and WT5 conference calls and related Chats. The general position is motivated by three fundamental considerations:

- the right to use a geographical name pertains in the first instance to the people who live there, and have often done so for hundreds of years. It is a matter of identity, and to qualify those rights as a fantasy would appear to many people to be quite frivolous.

- the entities exercising those rights need not be central governments, who may yet do so by default. I would prefer to see a system based on subsidiarity and devolution

- whatever régime is finally adopted, it should be future-proof. These issues today are not what they were 20 years ago. Nor are they what they will become in 20 years time.

These considerations are set out in more detail in the attached paper, which I shall copy to the List in a separate posting. Regards Christopher Wilkinson