| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | AA | AB | AC | AD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | "Defined geographic term" | Treatment in 2007 GNSO PDP | Treatment in 2012 AGB | Issues/remarks | Valid geographic term for the purposes of new gTLDs? | Positive impact/merits based on AGB treatment | Negative impact/opportunities based on AGB treatment | Questions raised | Future treatment (e.g. retain/remove/change) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 2.2.1.3.2 DNS Stability: String Review Procedure (Part III/3.2) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Alpha-2 code listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard | Two-character ASCII strings are not permitted, regardless of whether they are on the ISO 3166-1 or not. Reason: to avoid conflicting with current and future country codes based on the ISO 3166-1 standard. | Two-character ASCII strings are not permitted as TLDs, regardless of whether they are on the ISO 3166-1 or not. Reason: to avoid conflicting with current and future country codes based on the ISO 3166-1 standard. | - In the 2012 AGB, two character IDNs are allowed unless (a) it is visually similar to any one-character label (in any script); or (2) it is visually similar to any possible two character ASCII combination. See Section 2.2.1.3.2, Part III. - ISO 3166-1 only contains letter/letter combinations, but all two-character strings were restricted in policy and implementation. | - ISO 3166-1 has been the basis for ccTLDs since 2000 at ICANN. You can not pick and choose elements you want to use. - Jaap Akkerhuis - ISO 3166-1 is tied to a larger universe and has a consistency across that universe. - Greg Shatan - As almost all of these codes have been delegated, there is not much of an issue to address. - Jeff Neuman, Peter Van Roste, Barrack Otieno, Rosalia Morales - Two-alpha strings are RFC defined as cc-TLDs. It is not our job to re-write the RFC. - Alan Greenberg, Rosalia Morales, Javier Rúa-Jovet - The naming space is still huge. Better focus on other strings than on two letters that are descibed in the RFC. 2007/2012 rules should remain - Pierre Bonis | - Two-letter combinations are available in case new two-letter codes are added to the the ISO 3166-1 list/ new countries established that want a ccTLD. - Nick Wenban-Smith, Christopher Wilkinson, Rosalia Morales, Ricardo Holmquist, Javier Rúa-Jovet, Maureen Hilyard, Ann-Cathrin Marcussen, Jorge Cancio, Peter Van Roste, Alexander Schubert - This provision makes the difference between ccTLDs and gTLDs clear to users. - Alexander Schubert - Avoids creating confusion to the general understanding that all two alpha strings are ccTLDs - Justine Chew - Objective, consistent rule that was easy to apply. - Jeff Neuman | - Two-character letter/number and number/number combinations were not available under this provision, even though they will never be ccTLDs. - Greg Shatan - Some ccTLDs essentially operate as gTLDs without the restrictions associated with gTLDs, blurring the distinction between ccTLDs and gTLDs. These TLDs are taking advantage of the assumption that all 2-letter TLDs are ccTLDs. - Greg Shatan - Possible opportunities lost in the gTLD space, but difficult to assess. - Jeff Neuman | - What was the rationale for this provision? Regarding the text "to avoid conflicting with current and future country codes," was this a concern about typo variations/misdirected traffic or competition for ccTLD operators with country code top level domain names? - Paul McGrady - How often are new 2-letter country codes added to the ISO 3166-1 list? - Martin Sutton - What are the lost opportunities in the gTLD space as a result of this provision? - Paul McGrady - Is letter/number and number/number combinations in scope of discussion for this group? (Martin Sutton, Nick Wenban-Smith, Ann-Cathrin Marcussen, and Jim Prendergast expressed that this is out of scope for WT5; Jorge Cancio said that number-letter may have geographic implication because it could be confused with a 2-letter code) - If the issue of letter/number and number/number is out of scope for this group, this fact should be clearly articulated - Paul McGrady, Kristina Rosette - Not sure at all tha letter/number and number/number is within the scope of WT5 - Pierre Bonis | - The Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country and Territory Names (CWG-UCTN) reached preliminary consensus in support of maintaining the status quo of 2-character codes as exclusively reserved for country code TLDs. - The ISO should be consulted on future treatment. - Christopher Wilkinson - Should we limit restriction to letter-letter combinations in the future? - Jeff Neuman (the WT will need to determine whether it considers this in scope for WT5. Otherwise, it will refer the issue to WT2.) - Treatment should be maintained - Jorge Cancio | ||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | 2.2.1.4.1 Country or Territory Names | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Alpha-3 code listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard | Available, but challenge mechanism available to governments to initiate an objection. Applicants should be aware of GAC Principles. Applicants must represent that the use of the proposed string is not in violation of the national laws in which the applicant is incorporated. | Alpha-3 codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard are not permitted as TLDs. | - .com on the ISO 3166-1 list as 3-letter country code. It was delegated before the issue of 3-letter country codes was considered in ICANN policy/implementation. - ccTLD policy exists on this issue. Where appropriate, we should defer to this policy. - Christopher Wilkinson - "Could we examine this issue more definitively? There are two issues. One is the listing of three letter codes on the ISO list. It seems there could be consensus around continuing to reserve those labels which are on the ISO list but there are many others, including .com, .net and so on, that are being used. It would be helpful to make those distinctions clearer." - Liz Williams | - There is an geographic connection for alpha 3 codes. They are three letter country codes in ISO 3166. - Nick Wenban-Smith, Alexander Schubert, Susan Payne, Greg Shatan, Christopher Wilkinson, Paul McGrady, Rosalia Morales, Ann-Cathrin Marcussen, Sanna Sahlman | - There is a strong feeling in the cc community that the Alpha-3 list is closely associated with country names. Countries often use their 3-letter codes in various contexts. There is concern about confusion of country names. - Nick Wenban-Smith | - There are a number of potential uses that were excluded from the outset, which could be perceived as a missed opportunity (examples: .can, .iot, .idn, .gin, .gum, .fin, .cub, .pry) - Susan Payne, Nick Wenban-Smith, Paul McGrady, Greg Shatan - A prospective applicant would be banned even if they could have come to an agreement with the respective "owner" of the 3-letter code. - Katrin Ohlmer | - What are the lost opportunities in the gTLD space as a result of this provision? - Paul McGrady - Welsh community considered applying for CYM because it was the first three letters of Whales in Welsh. But this is the alpha-3 code for the Cayman Islands, so it was not available. - Nick Wenban-Smith - Are there any countries that would have liked to apply for a 3 character country code? - Martin Sutton - Were transpositions of 3-letter codes allowed in the 2012 round? NER is the alpha 3 for Niger, but .REN is a new gTLD under the 2012 round. So they are allowed. - Nick Wenban-Smith - What happens if the ISO 3166-1 alpha 3 code list changes over time? - Justine Chew - What if countries not represented in the GAC or territories without governments want to have a three-character representation in the future? - Elsa Saade | - The Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country and Territory Names (CWG-UCTN) was unable to reach consensus on the treatment of 3-letter codes. - The ISO should be consulted on future treatment. - Christopher Wilkinson - Great care must be taken not to confuse existing 3 letter country codes with Geo-names - Javier Rúa-Jovet - Treatment should be maintained. Subsidiarity and policy authority of the local/national community –as in ccTLDs- should be respected in any case. - Jorge Cancio - Support for maintaining current treatment. - Ann-Cathrin Marcussen, Rosalia Morales, Timo Võhmar, Nick Wenban-Smith, Pierre Bonis, Adrián Carballo - These names should be delegated only through local policy authorities as opposed to global policy authorities. - Jorge Cancio, Leonardo Benedicto (sp?) - Moving delegation of these strings to local authorities is inconsistent with the objective to provide clarity, certainty, predictability, and fairness for applicants. - Heather Forrest, Kristina Rosette - Consider measures for governments who want to apply. Perhaps a narrowly-tailored process for this could be established outside of this PDP. - Katrin Ohlmer, Taylor Bentley - Goverments could be given first chance to claim these codes, but if the government does not claim the code, it could become available to other applicants. - Greg Shatan - ISO should not be the source of geographic 3-character codes. - Carlos Raul Gutierrez - Reasons provided for maintaining current treatment: difficult issue to resolve and therefore better to leave as-is and move forward with deliberations; there is a strong geographic and identity association with these strings; questions regarding which part of ICANN community should develop policy for delegating these strings. - Reasons provided for changing treatment: there is no clear historical justification for maintaining reservation of these strings, therefore they should be available for delegation. - Delegate 3 letter codes to interested Governments and other geo related public interest entities prior to or during the next round. Taking the delegation of 2-letter codes to ccTLD managers as a precedent , we should assume that there is demand out there for differentiated use of 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list codes, either by Governments, public entities, communities or even some ccTLD managers themselves. So instead of the 3-letter codes of the ISO-3166-1 list remaining reserved, the WT5 should analyze the possibility of using subsequent rounds and the proven evaluation methodology and assigning process of the last round (as in the case for city names) for the ISO list 3 letter codes. - Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez (full proposal at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/2018-April/000340.html) - All the ISO alpha 3 are allotted within bounds that these could be used as alternate to alpha 2 for countries - Kris Seeburn | ||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Long-form name listed in the ISO 3166-standard, or a translation of the long-form name in any language | Available, but challenge mechanism available to governments to initiate an objection. Applicants should be aware of GAC Principles. Applicants must represent that the use of the proposed string is not in violation of the national laws in which the applicant is incorporated. | Not permitted as TLDs. | - ISO draws from the UN terminology database for this list. The ISO only identifies terms itself when there is a gap in the UN terminology database. - Jaap Akkerhuis | - This list is a useful reference point but not the only authoritative source of country names and may differ from other lists/sources. This list has limitations. - Jaap Akkerhuis - This is a valid geographic term - Rosalia Morales, Ann-Cathrin Marcussen, Javier Rúa-Jovet | - It was an easy, predictable, and objective standard to follow - Jeff Neuman, Rosalia Morales, Nick Wenban-Smith, Javier Rúa-Jovet | - If a country wanted to apply for their long name as TLD, they were not allowed. - Katrin Ohlmer - Potential missed opportunities, but difficult to measure. | Is IDN-ccTLD fast track out-of-scope in this discussion? - Ching Chiao - What are the lost opportunities in the gTLD space as a result of this provision? - Paul McGrady - How do we manage "in any language," given that there are a very large number of languages and it cannot be a definitive list? - Alan Greenberg -- Response: Start with official languages of the country or geography and possibly expand to UN languages - Christopher Wilkinson -- Response: Prefer to keep the text "in any language." No list is definitive. We could try to move towards an exhaustive repository. - Rahul Gosain -- Response: There are 7,000 languages. "In any language" could mean making unavailable many thousands of strings. Important to understand the magnitude of this. - Alexander Schubert -- Response: There are some languages that are spoken by a small number of people who are not related to the string, so those shouldn't be included in the ban. - Robin Gross -- Response: Perhaps we need a multi-pronged approach. Start with a core list of country and territory names in official languages to establish some predictability. And fall back on the objections process if some names/words are considered sensitive. - Justine Chew -- Response: As far as country names in their official languages and in the six UN languages are concerned, a good starting point is Working Paper 54 of the UN Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN). https://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/26th-gegn-docs/WP/WP54_UNGEGN%20WG%20Country%20Names%20Document%202011.pdf -- Yrjö Länsipuro -- Response: Use UN Languages, plus the official language of the country. -- Javier Rua, Annebeth Lange ---- Defining official languages for every country will be a difficult task. -- Jaap Akkerhuis -- Response: Limit to the UN languages. -- Kris Seeburn -- Response: To determine what languages to include we may use the status of each language in each country where it is used in the Status element of a language . The first is an estimate of the overall development versus endangerment of the language using the EGIDS (Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale) scale (Lewis and Simons 2010). The second is a categorization of the Official Recognition given to a language within the country.The EGIDS consists of 13 levels with each higher number on the scale representing a greater level of disruption to the intergenerational transmission of the language. Link : https://www.ethnologue.com/about/language-status - Harish Chowdhary - Should governments have the ability to add names in other languages prior to the round beginning? If the answer is yes, then is there a limit on the number of languages and is there a standard that needs to be applied if they want to add names to the list? -- Response: I think the suggestion for Yrjo makes sense. Having all languages included, will be too difficult and there will be no predictability. However, perhaps combining this with an objection procedure if a country reacts on an applicaiton of their country name in a certain language. -- Annebeth Lange - Do we outright ban the application for all of these names, or can we require a letter of consent / non-objection recognizing that any application that is approved must adhere to the gTLD policies, contract, etc. | - Treatment should be maintained. Subsidiarity and policy authority of the local/national community –as in ccTLDs- should be respected in any case. - Jorge Cancio - In gTLD PDP context the 2012 treatment should be maintained - Timo Võhmar - Treatment should be maintained because these strings identify a country, they create confusion with different users, and it is a limited list to reserve. - Rosalia Morales - These names should be delegated only through local policy authorities as opposed to global policy authorities. - Jorge Cancio, Leonardo Benedicto (sp?) - Moving delegation of these strings to local authorities is inconsistent with the objective to provide clarity, certainty, predictability, and fairness for applicants. - Heather Forrest, Kristina Rosette - Consider measures for governments who want to apply. Perhaps a narrowly-tailored process for this could be established outside of this PDP. - Katrin Ohlmer, Taylor Bentley - Regarding long and short form ISO 3166 names, I have seen nothing recently in WT5 or on the List that would treat these differently from the 3-character codes. It would not be appropriate to 'defer broader questions…' about these. After all, that is what WT5 is here for. Terms should be available for delegation to relevant public authorities. - Christopher Wilkinson | ||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | Short-form name listed in the ISO 3166-standard, or a translation of the short-form name in any language | Available, but challenge mechanism available to governments to initiate an objection. Applicants should be aware of GAC Principles. Applicants must represent that the use of the proposed string is not in violation of the national laws in which the applicant is incorporated. | Not permitted as TLDs. | - Similar positive impact/merits as long-form names -- It was an easy, predictable, and objective standard to follow | - Similar negative impact/opportunities as long-form names -- If a country wanted to apply for their long name as TLD, they were not allowed. - Potential missed opportunities, but difficult to measure. | Is IDN-ccTLD fast track out-of-scope in this discussion? - Ching Chiao - What are the lost opportunities in the gTLD space as a result of this provision? - Paul McGrady - How do we manage "in any language," given that there are a very large number of languages and it cannot be a definitive list? - Alan Greenberg -- Response: Start with official languages of the country or geography and possibly expand to UN languages - Christopher Wilkinson -- Response: Prefer to keep the text "in any language." No list is definitive. We could try to move towards an exhaustive repository. - Rahul Gosain -- Response: There are 7,000 languages. "In any language" could mean making unavailable many thousands of strings. Important to understand the magnitude of this. - Alexander Schubert -- Response: There are some languages that are spoken by a small number of people who are not related to the string, so those shouldn't be included in the ban. - Robin Gross -- Response: Perhaps we need a multi-pronged approach. Start with a core list of country and territory names in official languages to establish some predictability. And fall back on the objections process if some names/words are considered sensitive. - Justine Chew -- Response: As far as country names in their official languages and in the six UN languages are concerned, a good starting point is Working Paper 54 of the UN Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN). https://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/26th-gegn-docs/WP/WP54_UNGEGN%20WG%20Country%20Names%20Document%202011.pdf -- Yrjö Länsipuro -- Response: Use UN Languages, plus the official language of the country. -- Javier Rua, Annebeth Lange ---- Defining official languages for every country will be a difficult task. -- Jaap Akkerhuis -- Response: Limit to the UN languages. -- Kris Seeburn -- Response: To determine what languages to include we may use the status of each language in each country where it is used in the Status element of a language . The first is an estimate of the overall development versus endangerment of the language using the EGIDS (Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale) scale (Lewis and Simons 2010). The second is a categorization of the Official Recognition given to a language within the country.The EGIDS consists of 13 levels with each higher number on the scale representing a greater level of disruption to the intergenerational transmission of the language. Link : https://www.ethnologue.com/about/language-status - Harish Chowdhary - Should governments have the ability to add names in other languages prior to the round beginning? If the answer is yes, then is there a limit on the number of languages and is there a standard that needs to be applied if they want to add names to the list? -- Response: I think the suggestion for Yrjo makes sense. Having all languages included, will be too difficult and there will be no predictability. However, perhaps combining this with an objection procedure if a country reacts on an applicaiton of their country name in a certain language. -- Annebeth Lange - Do we outright ban the application for all of these names, or can we require a letter of consent / non-objection recognizing that any application that is approved must adhere to the gTLD policies, contract, etc. | - Treatment should be maintained. Subsidiarity and policy authority of the local/national community –as in ccTLDs- should be respected in any case. - Jorge Cancio - In gTLD PDP context the 2012 treatment should be maintained - Timo Võhmar - Treatment should be maintained because these strings identify a country, they create confusion with different users, and it is a limited list to reserve. - Rosalia Morales - These names should be delegated only through local policy authorities as opposed to global policy authorities. - Jorge Cancio, Leonardo Benedicto (sp?) - Moving delegation of these strings to local authorities is inconsistent with the objective to provide clarity, certainty, predictability, and fairness for applicants. - Heather Forrest, Kristina Rosette - Consider measures for governments who want to apply. Perhaps a narrowly-tailored process for this could be established outside of this PDP. - Katrin Ohlmer, Taylor Bentley - Regarding long and short form ISO 3166 names, I have seen nothing recently in WT5 or on the List that would treat these differently from the 3-character codes. It would not be appropriate to 'defer broader questions…' about these. After all, that is what WT5 is here for. Terms should be available for delegation to relevant public authorities. - Christopher Wilkinson | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | Short- or long form name association with a code that has been designated as "exceptionally reserved" by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency | Available, but challenge mechanism available to governments to initiate an objection. Applicants should be aware of GAC Principles. Applicants must represent that the use of the proposed string is not in violation of the national laws in which the applicant is incorporated. | Not permitted as TLDs. | - Similar positive impact/merits as long-form names -- It was an easy, predictable, and objective standard to follow | - Similar negative impact/opportunities as long-form names -- If a country wanted to apply for their long name as TLD, they were not allowed. - Potential missed opportunities, but difficult to measure. | - What are the lost opportunities in the gTLD space as a result of this provision? - Paul McGrady | - Treatment should be maintained. Subsidiarity and policy authority of the local/national community –as in ccTLDs- should be respected in any case. - Jorge Cancio - In gTLD PDP context the 2012 treatment should be maintained - Timo Võhmar - Terms should be available for delegation to relevant public authorities. - Christopher Wilkinson - The WT may want to consider removing this item as there is no definition in the standard for what an exceptionally reserved name is. - Jaap Akkerhuis, Christopher Wilkinson, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | Separable component of a country name designated on the "Separable Country Name List", or is a translation of a name appearing on the list, in any language, according to annex in AGB | Available, but challenge mechanism available to governments to initiate an objection. Applicants should be aware of GAC Principles. Applicants must represent that the use of the proposed string is not in violation of the national laws in which the applicant is incorporated. | Not permitted as TLDs. | - Similar positive impact/merits as long-form names -- It was an easy, predictable, and objective standard to follow | - Similar negative impact/opportunities as long-form names -- If a country wanted to apply for their long name as TLD, they were not allowed. - Potential missed opportunities, but difficult to measure. | - What are the lost opportunities in the gTLD space as a result of this provision? - Paul McGrady | - Treatment should be maintained. Subsidiarity and policy authority of the local/national community –as in ccTLDs- should be respected in any case. - Jorge Cancio - In gTLD PDP context the 2012 treatment should be maintained - Timo Võhmar - Terms should be available for delegation to relevant public authorities. - Christopher Wilkinson | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | Permutation or transposition of any of the names included above. Permutations include removal of spaces, insertion of punctuation, and addition or removal of grammatical articles like "the". A transposition is considered a change in the sequence of the long or short–form name, for example, “RepublicCzech” or “IslandsCayman.” | Available, but challenge mechanism available to governments to initiate an objection. Applicants should be aware of GAC Principles. Applicants must represent that the use of the proposed string is not in violation of the national laws in which the applicant is incorporated. | Not permitted as TLDs. | - Presumably, "transposition" refers only to the rearrangement of words within a term and not letters within a term. - Alan Greenberg | - It probably does make sense to consider some of these terms geographic. - Susan Payne | - Because this provision does not specifically refer to terms on a particular list, it is less clear. - Martin Sutton - Potential missed opportunities, but difficult to measure. - It is hard to imagine that someone would want to apply for IslandsCayman, therefore it is hard to imagine a harm associated with reserving this term. - Alexander Schubert | - Clarification is needed on the scope of the permutations and transpositions restriction - does it apply to 3-letter codes? - NER is the alpha 3 for Niger, but .REN is a new gTLD under the 2012 round. So they are allowed. - Nick Wenban-Smith - Are there examples where the permutation is actually a used term or expression? This does not seem to be the case for the examples given (“RepublicCzech” and “IslandsCayman.)” - Alan Greenberg - Was this an actual problem in the last round, or are we trying to identify a hypothetical problem to fix? - Paul McGrady, Alan Greenberg - Did anyone want to apply for one of these terms but was unable to do so? - Martin Sutton - Did this provision apply to translations into other languages? -- Response: translation is mentioned in (ii) long-form name and (iii) short-form name - In the 2012 AGB, was there any restrictions in TLDs that contained a country name, for example "gocanada"? - Justine Chew | - WT members found the phrasing of this provision confusing. If a similar provision is included in the future, the text should be more clear. - Transposition and permutation restrictions should not apply to 3-letter codes. Such a provision would not make sense. There is already not a strong association between many 3-letter codes and the countries they represent. - Alexander Schubert - If you had a brand name M&M&M and there was a three character on that ISO list that was MMM, that wouldn’t be allowed. If the three character string that you are applying for matches the three characters on that ISO list, then you cannot apply for that and that would include the removal of all illegal characters. - Jeff Neuman, in response to Alexander Schubert - The group should consider removing this provision, unless there is documented problem that this provision seeks to solve. The "TheCaymanIslands" can not be "outlawed" because we do not "outlaw" embedded strings. This is why the objections processes exist. They should be used to address edge cases. - Alan Greenberg, Paul McGrady, Alexander Schubert - Each country should be asked what permutations should apply. - Milagros Castañon - Treatment should be maintained. Subsidiarity and policy authority of the local/national community –as in ccTLDs- should be respected in any case. - Jorge Cancio - In gTLD PDP context the 2012 treatment should be maintained - Timo Võhmar - Terms should be available for delegation to relevant public authorities. - Christopher Wilkinson - For non-English speakers, the terms "permutation" and "transposition" are difficult to understand. - Annebeth Lange | |||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | A name by which a country is commonly known, as demonstrated by evidence that the country is recognized by that name by an intergovernmental or treaty organization | Available, but challenge mechanism available to governments to initiate an objection. Applicants should be aware of GAC Principles. Applicants must represent that the use of the proposed string is not in violation of the national laws in which the applicant is incorporated. | Not permitted as TLDs. | Support expressed for considering these geographic terms - Rosalía Morales, Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Ann-Cathrin Marcussen | - There is some level of predictability, because there are specific sources of terms. - Martin Sutton - Agree in theory with Martin, but given the confusion among this group, the rules are not that easy to understand in practice, and therefore are not completely predicable. - Susan Payne | - Countries would not be able to apply for these terms if they wanted to do so. - Martin Sutton - Potential missed opportunities, but difficult to measure. | - Did any countries want to apply for any of these terms? - Martin Sutton - Is there a strict definition of treaty organization one can consult? - Renata Aquino Ribeiro | - Treatment should be maintained. Subsidiarity and policy authority of the local/national community –as in ccTLDs- should be respected in any case. - Jorge Cancio - In gTLD PDP context the 2012 treatment should be maintained - Timo Võhmar - As long as the country can demonstrate by substantial evidence that the country is recognized by that name, I think it should suffice. - Rahul Gosain - Terms should be available for delegation to relevant public authorities. - Christopher Wilkinson - The words "in any language" should be added to the text in this section. - Rahul Gosain | |||||||||||||||||||||||
13 | 2.2.1.4.2 Other geographic names | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 | A representation, in any language, of a capital city name of any country or territory listed in ISO 3166-1 | Available, but challenge mechanism available to governments to initiate an objection. Applicants should be aware of GAC Principles. Applicants must represent that the use of the proposed string is not in violation of the national laws in which the applicant is incorporated. | Require support/non-objection from relevant governments or public authorities | Support expressed for considering these geographic terms - Annebeth Lange, Demi Getschko, Rosalía Morales, Ann-Cathrin Marcussen | - There is some level of predictability, because there are specific sources of terms. - Martin Sutton - 2012 AGB requirement of a “non-objection letter” by the relevant public authorities worked well, as it created a good mix of incentives for applicants and relevant authorities to arrive at mutually accepted solutions for the delegation of the strings. - Jorge Cancio -- Response: In many jurisdictions, there are tensions between communities and their “governments.” It is awkward indeed that ICANN new TLD evaluators might need to make decisions about affected communities and applicants where governments may have explicit interests that are in direct conflict. I don't want to see a legitimate applicant punished/evaluated negatively because a government entity doesn’t agree with its position/entitlement/raison d’être. - Liz Williams | - The application process was long and city adminstrations change over time. This is a potential source of difficulty. - Susan Payne, Liz Williams - Challenges associated with resolving competing bids for these terms. - Liz Williams - City names are also sometimes generic terms or brands. - Annebeth Lange - Potentially difficult to determine who to contact in government for consent/non-objection. - Martin Sutton | - Are there examples of cases where applicants had difficulty determining the appropriate goverment authority from which to seek consent/non-objection? - Martin Sutton - What happens in capital city names change over time? - Justine Chew - Would applicants and governments interact directly in a future process or would they do so through ICANN? - Will future processes of consent or non-objection use an implicit or explicit model of consent/non-objection? Who are the other possible sources of consent/non-objection aside from governments? - Kavouss Arasteh | - Consider measures to make it easier to find the relevant government authority. The GAC could assist for countries with GAC representation. - Annebeth Lange - Treatment should be maintained - Jorge Cancio - Mechanisms should be put in place so that applicants know exactly who to contact for consent or non-objection. - Ines Hfaiedh - Support for requiring explicit government support/non-objection. We should not analyze the difference between the two as they have the same outcome. - Kavouss Arasteh - There was no opportunity worldwide to inform the relevant local authorities and communities ex post. And I think all geographical terms should be subject to prior authorization of the application, otherwise there will be misunderstandings and difficulties. - Christopher Wilkinson - All objections from different sources should be treated equitably and should follow a clear set of standardized objectives. We need to take into account that some applicants may pursue legitimate objectives that are not within the purview of governments or agreed to by governments. Other considerations beyond national law must also be taken into account in developing the application process for TLDs. It is not practical for Applicants to be required to represent that the use of the proposed string is not in violation of the national laws in which the applicant is incorporated, as an applicant may be located anywhere in the world. There is a difference between support and non-objection. It is too narrow to think that governments are the only ones who might be a source of support of non-objection. Distinction between capital cities and cities is not helpful. - Liz Williams - The idea that support/non-objection would be required for strings, from governments and/or other parties, is going in the wrong direction. Giving rights of support/non-objection to certain parties based on the concept of sovereignty and not the rule of law is dangerous and ill-advised. When we discuss objections, we need to be very careful about considering the basis of the objection that should be allowed, not just parties who have a right to object. - Greg Shatan - The people of a country or place have an attachment to the name. They should consulted in the use of a name associated with that place. Not everything needs to be written in law. Any use of geographic names must respect the national legislation, national law or national rules and customs in a given country - Kavouss Arasteh - Response: Where does this right come from? - Greg Shatan - Response: Governments are supposed to represent the people in the country. - Annebeth Lange - Response: That presumption that governments represent the people in the country assumes the government is democratic, and ICANN has no such requirement. - Robin Gross - Capital city names and city names should be treated differently. - Kavouss Arasteh - Existing GNSO Policy (Principle G) reflects that an applicants freedom of expression rights should be respected - which means people have the right to refer to terms with geographic meaning. - Robin Gross - There needs to be a legal basis for any restrictions. - Robin Gross, Heather Forrest - Given that we are dealing with a global resource we must look beyond domestic/national laws, which apply only within one jurisdiction's borders. - Heather Forrest - I would like to see a geographic name being defined as a term/string that is associated with a geographic area and cannot be reasonably confused with any other geographic area or term. - Sara Bockey - We need a basis in law to restrict, otherwise, we will have idea who feels entitled to exclusive use of a word. And the ICANN existing policy is that rules need to be predictable and known in advance. - Robin Gross - Context is important. If there is a brand, intending to use a term in the context and for the purpose of their brand, then there is no reason for objection by those who may have an interest in a name in another context. So perhaps we need to consider how we ensure under the contract that the name gets used in the manner the applicant proposes. - Susan Payne - There are several problems with non-geographic use: 1. Future brands have many alternatives; the people in the Place Name don't have alternatives. 2. A TLD is likely to be permanent. I don't foresee Places renouncing their fudture use. 3. Granted that there will have to be some grandfathers, but by now I assume that IPC is warning the TM community that it is a bad idea to try and take over place names in the future. - Christopher Wilkinson - It's not the role of ICANN to change international law - Susan Payne, Heather Forrest, Robin Gross - There were problems with Spa, but lots of great city TLDs were created - Paris, Tokyo NYC etc. The issue is ICANN granting a perpetual license for an exclusive TLD, and the fundamental inherent contention issues which are not so hard in the trademark world. - Nick Wenban-Smith - Work done in the community resulting in the AGB2012 is a compromise that we should keep. - Sanna Sahlman - - People in a geographic location have rights related to the name of that place based on history and geography. The entities exercising those right do not need to be central governments. Regarding incorporation and jurisdiction, it may be expected that governments and their local administrations would expect their geographical TLD to be incorporated domestically, subject to local law. - Christopher Wilkinson | |||||||||||||||||||||||
15 | City name, used for purposes associated with the city name | Available, but challenge mechanism available to governments to initiate an objection. Applicants should be aware of GAC Principles. Applicants must represent that the use of the proposed string is not in violation of the national laws in which the applicant is incorporated. | Require support/non-objection from relevant governments or public authorities. | - What if two different cities have the same name? For instance: "Tripoli" in Libya and "Tripoli" in Lebanon. - Ines Hfaiedh | - Support expressed for considering these geographic names - Ann-Cathrin Marcussen | - 2012 AGB requirement of a “non-objection letter” by the relevant public authorities worked well, as it created a good mix of incentives for applicants and relevant authorities to arrive at mutually accepted solutions for the delegation of the strings. The Swiss government provided consent/non-objection for a TLD from the 2012 round that is still operating, so this system worked well.- Jorge Cancio - Applicants for .Berlin got a letter of non-objection from the local government and this worked well. - Katrin Ohlmer | - City names are also sometimes generic terms or brands. - Annebeth Lange, Robin Gross, Paul McGrady - Challenges associated with resolving competing bids for these terms. - Liz Williams - The application process was long and city adminstrations change over time. This is a potential source of difficulty. - Liz Williams - Potentially difficult to determine who to contact in government for consent/non-objection. - Martin Sutton - There is no established list of city names. - Justine Chew - In many jurisdictions, there are tensions between communities and their “governments.” It is awkward indeed that ICANN new TLD evaluators might need to make decisions about affected communities and applicants where governments may have explicit interests that are in direct conflict. I don't want to see a legitimate applicant punished/evaluated negatively because a government entity doesn’t agree with its position/entitlement/raison d’être. - Liz Williams | - There is a town in Pennsylvania called "Mars". There is a large candy/pet food company that is also names Mars. That company has been around for 100+ years. Is there a way to get a solution that respects both the brand as well as the town? - Jeff Neuman -- In response: There are also many many place names that are very descriptive. There are towns in the US called Flint, Golden, Granite, Boulder which are all "things" outside of the geographic connotation. Similarly Bath, Ford in the UK. There are many many examples all around the world. - Susan Payne -- In response: Lincoln is a car brand name, as well as a city in Nebraska, as well as the name of a President. - Sara Bockey -- In response: Re: Mars -Sometimes these problems can be resolved on the local level. If you still remember a company called Nokia, there's also a city with that name, the birthplace of the company,but they didn't contest the company's right to apply for .nokia, which they now have. - Yrjö Länsipuro -- Perth is the capital city of Western Australia. It is also the name of cities in Scotland and Canada. - Liz Williams --In response: Perth is also a town in Tasmania. - David Cake -- Could related places could create a co-operative agreement to operate the registry (for example, in the case of .perth). -- Martin Sutton | - Important to consider what to do if two applicants got support for the city name string from two different governments in two different countries (two different cities in two different countries have the same name)? - Milagros Castañón, Carlos Dionisio Aguirre - Analysis may be warranted as to whether there were instances of “gaming the system” as the non-objection was only applicable to the geographic use - Jorge Cancio - Worth noting that some cities hold the name of countries in different languages. For example Oman (sultanate of) and Amman (Capital of Jordan) are written in the exact same way in Arabic script - Ines Hfaiedh - Support for requiring explicit government support/non-objection. We should not analyze the difference between the two as they have the same outcome. - Kavouss Arasteh - There was no opportunity worldwide to inform the relevant local authorities and communities ex post. And I think all geographical terms should be subject to prior authorization of the application, otherwise there will be misunderstandings and difficulties. - Christopher Wilkinson - Recommendation: no special treatment for place names as TLDs. Applicants for those names would be evaluated against other business and technical criteria just like another application. We should support all types of applications without bias. 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. - Liz Williams - Why should the burden be shifted on hundreds of thousands of city governments to monitor proceedings of an organization 99.9% of them do not know? - Jorge Cancio - The concept of “non-objection” or tacit approval is quite difficult and hasn’t served us well. Having “approval” to do something is regularly granted by governments based on, for example, licensing conditions for water rights, competition requirements for a telecommunications license, application processes for government funding. In the case we are talking about here, it is not the situation where governments grant approval for a top level domain. ICANN opens a process with rules and systems. Evaluators assess applications, the GAC may give advice, the Board considers that advice but national governments are not the arbiters of rights in top level domain applications. They are, nonetheless, important stakeholders. . . There were many fights about who got the right to have the letters of support for a vast array of types of applications, including for geographic string. - Liz Williams - The system of "non-objection" and "support" letters works well e.g. for Governments that have a completely "laisser-faire" approach, for Governments who may investigate if the application has an impact on any public regulations/policies (and if satisfied that there are none, may just say so and ergo not object), for Governments that apply specific policies/regulations applicable to the names in question, etc. Not objecting is less than supporting - some Governments may lack a legal basis to support, but may have it to not-object (as they may have potential grounds for an objection). - Jorge Cancio - Smaller cities and communities should have a FIRST RIGHT against the interest monopolistic ccTLDs (doesn’t matter if privately owned or state supported) and large portfolio investors in Domain Names, and application costs should be lower from these smaller cities and communities compared to other types of applications. - Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez - City applicants should be (like btw .berlin was set up in 2005 and then applied as) community applicants. Question to resolve: What size (or importance) of a geo location leads to “objection rights”; or the requirement for a letter of approval? Are there instances where there should be a "beauty contest" approach? - Alexander Schubert - All objections from different sources should be treated equitably and should follow a clear set of standardized objectives. We need to take into account that some applicants may pursue legitimate objectives that are not within the purview of governments or agreed to by governments. Other considerations beyond national law must also be taken into account in developing the application process for TLDs. It is not practical for Applicants to be required to represent that the use of the proposed string is not in violation of the national laws in which the applicant is incorporated, as an applicant may be located anywhere in the world. There is a difference between support and non-objection. It is too narrow to think that governments are the only ones who might be a source of support of non-objection. Distinction between capital cities and cities is not helpful. - Liz Williams - The idea that support/non-objection would be required for strings, from governments and/or other parties, is going in the wrong direction. Giving rights of support/non-objection to certain parties based on the concept of sovereignty and not the rule of law is dangerous and ill-advised. When we discuss objections, we need to be very careful about considering the basis of the objection that should be allowed, not just parties who have a right to object. - Greg Shatan - The people of a country or place have an attachment to the name. They should consulted in the use of a name associated with that place. Not everything needs to be written in law. Any use of geographic names must respect the national legislation, national law or national rules and customs in a given country - Kavouss Arasteh - Response: Where does this right come from? - Greg Shatan - Response: Governments are supposed to represent the people in the country. - Annebeth Lange - Response: That presumption that governments represent the people in the country assumes the government is democratic, and ICANN has no such requirement. - Robin Gross - Capital city names and city names should be treated differently. - Kavouss Arasteh - It is not necessarily for WT5 to figure out how this would work, but as an illustration, it may be helpful to think about smaller locations with the same name and how they could share a TLD. This could be an advantage to make sure that there is sufficient interest and purpose for second level registrations. It may be more difficult to think of combining generic or brand uses with geographic interests. - Martin Sutton - It is idealistic but impractical to think that different groups associated with different geographic locations using the same name could form a coalition to share that string. There are many towns in the United States with the name Springfield. This is also the name of a rifle company and a musician, Rick Springfield. - Greg Shatan - Existing GNSO Policy (Principle G) reflects that an applicants freedom of expression rights should be respected - which means people have the right to refer to terms with geographic meaning. - Robin Gross - There needs to be a legal basis for any restrictions. - Robin Gross, Heather Forrest - Given that we are dealing with a global resource we must look beyond domestic/national laws, which apply only within one jurisdiction's borders. - Heather Forrest I would like to see a geographic name being defined as a term/string that is associated with a geographic area and cannot be reasonably confused with any other geographic area or term. - Sara Bockey - We need a basis in law to restrict, otherwise, we will have idea who feels entitled to exclusive use of a word. And the ICANN existing policy is that rules need to be predictable and known in advance. - Robin Gross - Context is important. If there is a brand, intending to use a term in the context and for the purpose of their brand, then there is no reason for objection by those who may have an interest in a name in another context. So perhaps we need to consider how we ensure under the contract that the name gets used in the manner the applicant proposes. - Susan Payne - There are several problems with non-geographic use: 1. Future brands have many alternatives; the people in the Place Name don't have alternatives. 2. A TLD is likely to be permanent. I don't foresee Places renouncing their fudture use. 3. Granted that there will have to be some grandfathers, but by now I assume that IPC is warning the TM community that it is a bad idea to try and take over place names in the future. - Christopher Wilkinson - It's not the role of ICANN to change international law - Susan Payne, Heather Forrest, Robin Gross - There were problems with Spa, but lots of great city TLDs were created - Paris, Tokyo NYC etc. The issue is ICANN granting a perpetual license for an exclusive TLD, and the fundamental inherent contention issues which are not so hard in the trademark world. - Nick Wenban-Smith - If there was no support/non-objection process for the names of larger cities (500,000 + inhabitants), a few applicants would likely apply for and receive many city names with no intention of doing good for the people of those cities. City TLDs are valuable namespace and should be operated with care, with the input of local authorities. There is a sense of the common good outside of law that should be taken into account. The goal should be to maximize the use of the TLD by city residents and should be treated as valuable infrastructure for the city. Perhaps create a threshold population to determine which cities require support/non-objection, since some cities have as many inhabitants as small countries. - Alexander Schubert - Cities have been founded, incorporated and given various privileges - including their names - throughout history. - Yrjö Länsipuro - It is not straightforward to try to make the distinction between a string used for geographic purposes and a string used for other purposes in the application process because 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. . . 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. The non-objection letter helped to reconcile the different interests for a string in the 2012 round. - Jorge Cancio - Berlin is the name an '80s rock band, the last name of composer Irving Berlin, and associated with four other live US trademark registrants. Why does the government of a German city get to choose who runs that global domain name registry? Governments have no preferential rights they are not accorded by international law. - Mike Rodenbaugh - Moral values outside of law should be taken into account in delegation of geographic TLDs. - Alexander Schubert - Enforcement of moral values outside of law are beyond ICANN's remit. - Mike Rodenbaugh - Could we consider the treatment of geographic terms in terms of the positive impact of brand status? Would it allow more users to be able to register and use a domain name? For example, going back to the Perth example, a .perth might help anyone who has an interest in "Perths" to register a name and use it as a way of establishing a geographic presence on the Internet that wasn't necessarily about only "one" location? For a registry operator, it would simplify registration policy without having to demonstrate, for example, an Australian post code with a 6000+ number nexus. - Liz Williams - If we extend the discussion of geographic names as brands, it is important to look at what rights brands do not have. Brands may not require letters of support/non-objection and may not stop and application with rights unrelated to their own. Apple the company cannot stop apple growers from applying for an operating .apple as an fruit-related TLD. - Greg Shatan - The nature of a trade mark, denoting the origin of certain goods and services vs those of another person, is a specific right in a specific jurisdiction for specific goods and services to legally stop another person from imitating your mark or confusing your customers; fundamentally it is about consumer protection and prevention of imitations. The nature of the right is also a negative right ie to stop others from doing certain things, rather than being an entitlement. Within those trade mark rules there are also restrictions about what can and cannot be obtained as a trade mark. For example our own application to trade mark a logo for .UK was refused under rules which prohibit registration of a trade mark which may indicate a geographical origin. You also can't register a mark which is simply too descriptive or non-distinctive. There's quite a helpful summary here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.gov.uk_guidance_unacceptable-2Dtrade-2Dmarks&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=0b6oVfs8v4_a7AyPYX7gX7FF19bNizFqNBUagFCru64&s=Wa84TAuuDvyMXXCqZh1kkzze2xNYileY94tHcJkcbi4&e= . - Nick Wenban-Smith - When enforcing that trademark, the owners of LUCERNE can seek to stop use or registration of a mark that raises a "likelihood of confusion" - basically, the same or similar mark for the same or related goods and services, and for goods and services in the "natural zone of expansion." - Greg Shatan - Luzern has a right on the name as such under civil right, which is qualitatively different. The right under the civil code on the name of a city is general in its scope, not limited to commercial issues, not limited to specific products and services and not focused on consumer protection. - Jorge Cancio - The civil code of Switzerland should not take precedence in our judgment to the trademark code of Great Britain, say. Indeed, to my mind the narrower more focused right should generally be thought of as taking precedence since it is less limiting of others. - Paul Rozenzweig - 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 [city.com]> or even <city.ccTLD> second level domain names. They still have no such legal right at any level of the DNS. - Mike Rodenbaugh - Italy provides protection for geographic names. The High court addressed this issue in Cass. n. 16022/2000. Usually it is the elected body (the mayor, the president of the regional council) of the corresponding name that could act in justice to protect the interest of the community it represents. - Giacomo Mazzone - UK rules on what may and may not be a company name: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.gov.uk_government_publications_incorporation-2Dand-2Dnames&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=0b6oVfs8v4_a7AyPYX7gX7FF19bNizFqNBUagFCru64&s=zM4xK6KqxIjff_C-UQo6ftNNrqDxBzRqQujntw9hrLw&e= You need a letter of non-objection in a number of situations where you are effectively representing yourself as associated with a region, government department or regulated profession. The laws in the UK regarding business names disapprove using a name or term which denotes (or might be confused with or denote) an official authority or body when there is no connection to that body in fact. The UK does not have restictions on use of city names but in other parts of Europe, goverments are more protective of place names and city names in particular. Letters of non-objection process for capital cities was not unreasonable. For example for .London the responsible body was the officer of the elected Mayor of London, similarly for the Wales domain we had to go through a selection process with the Welsh Assembly before we were allowed to have the right piece of paper in order to submit our application for the new gTLD. I agree that dealing with those bodies was at times frustrating and added complexity to the application process; but on the plus side the result was that there was only one applicant and with the leg work done up front they proceeded to delegation relatively quickly and smoothly. With the 2012 rules, there were successes in city and capital city names: .tokyo, .london, .paris, .berlin, .amsterdam, .nyc, .hamburg, .koeln, .boston, .vegas, .moscow, .wien, .miami. .istanbul, .sydney, .quebec, etc etc and also some IDNs . These had positive effects on geographical, cultural and linguistic diversity. If there is lack of consensus to change, better to keep the rules. - Nick Wenban-Smith - How should the future AGB handle this scenario: A substate people or indigenous community, say the Kurds, applies for a string that depicts a string which they historically claim "as theirs" (.Kurdistan), a string whose very existence would probably be denied by the relevant constituted sovereign authorities since its recognition would help validate the self-determination claim of that sub-state people (and the relevant constituted sovereign state strongly objects to the application). - Javier Rúa-Jovet - Alternative proposal to consent non/objection: 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. - Liz Williams - 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? - Katrin Ohlmer 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? - Katrin Ohlmer - It seems to me that the long-standing work done in the community resulting in the AGB2012 is a compromise that we should keep. - Ann-Cathrin Marcussen - 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. - Paul Rosenzweig - Response: 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. - Giacomo Mazzone - Proposal: 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. - Kris Seeburn - Support/non-objection mechanism causes rent-seeking and distorts markets. - Paul Rosenzweig - Alternative to proposal to base support/non-objection requirement on city size - Base the requirement on relative size of the city, for example the 10 largest cities in a country or the 3 largest cities in a sub-national region? - Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez - Work done in the community resulting in the AGB2012 is a compromise that we should keep. - Sanna Sahlman - People in a geographic location have rights related to the name of that place based on history and geography. The entities exercising those right do not need to be central governments. Regarding incorporation and jurisdiction, it may be expected that governments and their local administrations would expect their geographical TLD to be incorporated domestically, subject to local law. - Christopher Wilkinson - I believe that local governments should have priority over private interests ie each single community of Clinton should have precedence over the interests of Mr and Mrs Clinton. - Timo Võhmar | ||||||||||||||||||||||
16 | City names used for other purposes | Available, but challenge mechanism available to governments to initiate an objection. Applicants should be aware of GAC Principles. Applicants must represent that the use of the proposed string is not in violation of the national laws in which the applicant is incorporated. | No requirements. | - Another problem was the exchange of money between an applicant and the city for the "permission" to use the term. I find this rather difficult, especially for a generic term which has a meaning outside the name of a city. - Liz Williams, Susan Payne | - Were there contractual provisions in place to prevent an applicant from applying for non-geographic use but later using the TLD for geographic purposes? - Alan Greenberg, Annebeth Lange - Response to Alan Greenberg: It is the registrant who determines the use of the domains under the TLD, you might be able to restrict the way the applicant markets the TLD, but not create other restrictions. - Alexander Schubert - Response to Alan Greenberg: There is this provision in the Registry Agreement: "all material information provided and statements made in the registry TLD application, and statements made in writing during the negotiation of this Agreement, were true and correct in all material respects at the time made, and such information or statements continue to be true and correct in all material respects as of the Effective Date except as otherwise previously disclosed in writing by Registry Operator to ICANN." If you require a registry to certify that it is not using the TLD to refer to its geographic connotation (if it has one), then couldn't you apply that provision? - Jeff Neuman - There is a town in Pennsylvania called "Mars". There is a large candy/pet food company that is also names Mars. That company has been around for 100+ years. Is there a way to get a solution that respects both the brand as well as the town? - Jeff Neuman -- In response: There are also many many place names that are very descriptive. There are towns in the US called Flint, Golden, Granite, Boulder which are all "things" outside of the geographic connotation. Similarly Bath, Ford in the UK. There are many many examples all around the world. - Susan Payne -- In response: Lincoln is a car brand name, as well as a city in Nebraska, as well as the name of a President. - Sara Bockey -- In response: Re: Mars -Sometimes these problems can be resolved on the local level. If you still remember a company called Nokia, there's also a city with that name, the birthplace of the company,but they didn't contest the company's right to apply for .nokia, which they now have. - Yrjö Länsipuro | - Analysis may be warranted as to whether there were instances of “gaming the system” as the non-objection was only applicable to the geographic use - Jorge Cancio - Spa was an application in the 2012 round. The applicant wanted to use the string in the context of spa and beauty treatments. Spa is a town in Belgium. The Belgian government made clear in the 2012 round that they would not easily let the generic use of their name govern. The generic use of the term "spa" should have been enough to ensure that the application would not be held up by the Belgian government. - Greg Shatan - In principle in the AGB, a string associated with a city name but applied-for in the generic context should have been able to proceed. - Martin Sutton - The burden of non-objection is only fair to put on the applicant if the applicant is using the string in a geographic manner. 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. An application for .sandwich in the generic capacity should not require support/non-objection from Sandwich, England and Sandwich, Mass. 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 Shatan - It is not straightforward to try to make the distinction between a string used for geographic purposes and a string used for other purposes in the application process because 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. . . 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. The non-objection letter helped to reconcile the different interests for a string in the 2012 round. In Switzerland, if “.luzern” were to be applied for, intending a “non-geo use”, this would bring about not only political issues but also legal challenges in our country (based on Art. 29 civil code). - Jorge Cancio - Uniqueness does not convey primacy upon governments. TLDs may be unique, but that does not mean that governments should be able to block any use of a string with (among other things) a geographic meaning. "Use" is absolutely important -- it goes to whether a legitimate right is being exercised or infringed. - Greg Shatan - Questions related to different treatment for non-geographic use: What happens when the intended use changes through a modified business plan or the sale of a business? Does the system of public interest commitments system work for this purpose? Is a better Specification 13 the way to solve "intended use" question? - Liz Williams - Work done in the community resulting in the AGB2012 is a compromise that we should keep. - Sanna Sahlman - People in a geographic location have rights related to the name of that place based on history and geography. The entities exercising those right do not need to be central governments. There should not be different treatment for non-geographic use of a string -- It would be wrong to allow the application system to pre-empt the future geographical use of a name just because the applicant claimed non-geographical use today. Ownership of a TLD may change and use may change. The system should not be build around the idea that a string may have multiple meanings. These cases are the exception more than the rule. Regarding incorporation and jurisdiction, it may be expected that governments and their local administrations would expect their geographical TLD to be incorporated domestically, subject to local law. - Christopher Wilkinson - I believe that local governments should have priority over private interests ie each single community of Clinton should have precedence over the interests of Mr and Mrs Clinton. - Timo Võhmar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
17 | Exact match of a sub-national place name, such as a county, province, or state listed in ISO 3166-2 | Available, but challenge mechanism available to governments to initiate an objection. Applicants should be aware of GAC Principles. Applicants must represent that the use of the proposed string is not in violation of the national laws in which the applicant is incorporated. | Require support/non-objection from relevant governments or public authorities. | - There is some level of predictability, because there are specific sources of terms. - Martin Sutton - 2012 AGB requirement of a “non-objection letter” by the relevant public authorities worked well, as it created a good mix of incentives for applicants and relevant authorities to arrive at mutually accepted solutions for the delegation of the strings. - Jorge Cancio | - Lack of predictability for applicants - difficult to determine where to seek consent from governments. - Susan Payne - There is a large brand called "Tata" and also a very small region called "Tata." Some countries have many regions. It is unfair to applicants if few people are associating the term with its geographic meaning and the applicant wants to use the TLD for non-geographic purposes. - Alexander Schubert - In many jurisdictions, there are tensions between communities and their “governments.” It is awkward indeed that ICANN new TLD evaluators might need to make decisions about affected communities and applicants where governments may have explicit interests that are in direct conflict. I don't want to see a legitimate applicant punished/evaluated negatively because a government entity doesn’t agree with its position/entitlement/raison d’être. - Liz Williams | - How should an application be handled if a sub-national place name matches another geographic name, such as the name of a country (for example Georgia the US State and Georgia the country)? | - Treatment should be maintained - Jorge Cancio - Support for requiring explicit government support/non-objection - Kavouss Arasteh - There was no opportunity worldwide to inform the relevant local authorities and communities ex post. And I think all geographical terms should be subject to prior authorization of the application, otherwise there will be misunderstandings and difficulties. - Christopher Wilkinson - In the 2012 round the multinational company Tata, which is based in India, had to seek a letter of support or non-objection from a small province in Morocco even though there was no indication that the province had any interest in applying for this string. We are best served by allowing those who want a TLD to apply for it. - Greg Shatan | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
18 | String listed as a UNESCO region or appearing on the “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings” list. | Available, but challenge mechanism available to governments to initiate an objection. Applicants should be aware of GAC Principles. Applicants must represent that the use of the proposed string is not in violation of the national laws in which the applicant is incorporated. | Require support/non-objection from at least 60% of the respective national governments in the region and no more than 1 written statement of objection. | - There is some level of predictability, because there are specific sources of terms. - Martin Sutton - 2012 AGB requirement of a “non-objection letter” by the relevant public authorities worked well, as it created a good mix of incentives for applicants and relevant authorities to arrive at mutually accepted solutions for the delegation of the strings. - Jorge Cancio | - In many jurisdictions, there are tensions between communities and their “governments.” It is awkward indeed that ICANN new TLD evaluators might need to make decisions about affected communities and applicants where governments may have explicit interests that are in direct conflict. I don't want to see a legitimate applicant punished/evaluated negatively because a government entity doesn’t agree with its position/entitlement/raison d’être. - Liz Williams - .africa is an example of a string that had challenges in the 2012 round using the support/non-objection process. - Greg Shatan | - How was .ASIA delegated? How would delegation of Europe be handled under current AGB rules? - Kavouss Aresteh - Response to Kavouss: .asia had the support of the ccTLDs for China, Iran, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Phillippines and a bunch of technology pan-asian groups like APTLD, AAPNIC, etc. - Jeff Neuman - Response to Kavouss: It was a small group of countries and people that came together to agreement on it. - Liz Williams | - Treatment should be maintained - Jorge Cancio - Support for requiring explicit government support/non-objection - Kavouss Arasteh - There was no opportunity worldwide to inform the relevant local authorities and communities ex post. And I think all geographical terms should be subject to prior authorization of the application, otherwise there will be misunderstandings and difficulties. - Christopher Wilkinson | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
19 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
20 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
21 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
22 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
23 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
25 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
26 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
27 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
28 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
29 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
30 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
31 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
32 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
33 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
34 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
35 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
36 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
37 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
38 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
39 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
41 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
42 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
43 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
44 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
45 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
46 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
47 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
48 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
49 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
50 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
51 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
52 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
53 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
54 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
55 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
56 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
57 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
58 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
59 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
60 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
62 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
64 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
65 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
66 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
67 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
68 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
70 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
71 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
72 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
73 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
74 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
76 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
77 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
78 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
79 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
80 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
81 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
82 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
83 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
84 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
85 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
86 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
87 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
88 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
89 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
90 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
91 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
92 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
93 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
94 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
95 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
96 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
97 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
98 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
99 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
100 |