[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [GAC] Action for WT5 Members - Definition of Geographic Terms

Sun Jan 21 18:19:43 UTC 2018

Dear Michelle,

Tks for reply

Pls note that my téléphone number  IS NOT +49 3256534 as it is in fact +41
79 325 65 34 .

pls kindly consider that i have asked you to respectfully provide me in a
table the  SCHEDULE of the meetings of the main group as well as that of
Track 5

i need that info

regards

Kvouss

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Michelle
> Tks
> But I missed that call due to the fact that there is no independent and
> separate work schedule for this track
> The schedule is mixed with many other e-mails
> Once again I respectfully request you to draw up a monthly or bimonthly
> schedules in. an independent and separate table fir this activities
> Pls ki fly try to do that
> Kavouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 16 Jan 2018, at 17:42, Michelle DeSmyter <michelle.desmyter at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
> Hello Kavouss,
>
> Our next meeting for Work Track 5 is tomorrow, Wednesday, 17 January 2018
> at 05:00 UTC, I will forward you the meeting invitation momentarily.  I do
> want to reconfirm with you that we will be dialing out to you at this phone
> number approximately 5 minutes before the top of the hour at:  +49 3256534.
>
> Thank you so much!
>
> Kind regards,
> Michelle
>
> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 10:34 AM
> To: "<Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [GAC] Action for WT5 Members -
> Definition of Geographic Terms
>
> Dear Jorge,
> Thanks for yr swift reply,
> Let us wait .
> Note to Secretariat
> By the way, where is our next meeting ?
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:35 PM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
>
>> Dear Kavouss
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for your Email. Defining the geonames not covered by the 2012
>> AGB that would merit being included under the new rules is one of the
>> issues that would need to be further analyzed by wt5.
>>
>> For the time being I’m just pointing to this issue (which for the 2012
>> round is IMO quite well-documented in the documentation that has so far
>> been produced)-
>>
>>
>>
>> Hope this helps
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Jorge
>>
>>
>>
>> *Von:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
>> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 16. Januar 2018 16:31
>> *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>; Icann Gnso
>> Newgtld Wg Wt5 <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [GAC] Action for WT5 Members -
>> Definition of Geographic Terms
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Jorge,
>>
>> Thank you very much for the message.
>>
>> You have stated
>>
>> Quote:
>>
>> *·*        *However, problems in the application of the AGB 2012 related
>> to geonames as Top Level Domains have arisen in relation to **those
>> names with a geographic meaning/significance that were not covered under
>> the 2012 AGB rules **(we all know some examples that still are lingering
>> today). I would therefore suggest, for the time being, that we include in
>> this definition discussion, the notion that there were names with
>> geographic meaning not covered by the 2012 AGB definitions and rules, which
>> according to a factual analysis have given rise to problems, and that
>> therefore a debate would be warranted, in order to include them under the
>> definitions in a manner to be agreed upon, establishing a framework for
>> mutually agreed outcomes amongst all interested parties in such
>> applications.*
>>
>> *May you kindly provide the list of those  Geonames?*
>>
>> *Regards*
>>
>> *Kavouss *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 9:58 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Martin and all,
>>
>>
>>
>> Due to the timing of tomorrow’s call I’m unsure if I will be able to make
>> it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please consider however the following input regarding the definitions
>> mentioned in the 2012 AGB:
>>
>>
>>
>> ·         In general the definitions contained in the 2012 AGB have
>> worked well according to the data I’m aware of (for instance the data
>> circulated prior to the webinar organized in April last year).
>>
>>
>>
>> ·         However, problems in the application of the AGB 2012 related
>> to geonames as Top Level Domains have arisen in relation to those names
>> with a geographic meaning/significance that were not covered under the 2012
>> AGB rules (we all know some examples that still are lingering today). I
>> would therefore suggest, for the time being, that we include in this
>> definition discussion, the notion that there were names with geographic
>> meaning not covered by the 2012 AGB definitions and rules, which according
>> to a factual analysis have given rise to problems, and that therefore a
>> debate would be warranted, in order to include them under the definitions
>> in a manner to be agreed upon, establishing a framework for mutually agreed
>> outcomes amongst all interested parties in such applications.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hope this is helpful
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Jorge
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *Martin Sutton* <martin at brandregistrygroup.org>
>> Date: 2018-01-08 19:11 GMT-03:00
>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Action for WT5 Members - Definition of
>> Geographic Terms
>> To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>>
>> Dear WT5 Members,
>>
>>
>>
>> One of the key areas identified during the WT5 TOR discussions related to
>> the definition of geographic terms. This will be a priority focus for us as
>> we begin the substantive work in WT5 and has been highlighted in recent
>> exchanges on the PDP WG mailing list. Defining geographic terms for the
>> purpose of top-level domains will help us to frame our overall work within
>> WT5.
>>
>>
>>
>> To ensure that all WT5 members are working from the same set of
>> assumptions, we would like to have discussions about the working definition
>> of geographic names at our next meeting on 17 Jan and request input from
>> members prior to the call.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you are not familiar with the history and context of how the GNSO
>> policies and Applicant Guidebook evolved in relation to geographic terms,
>> the final report of the Cross Community Working Group Framework for the Use
>> of Country and Territory Names as TLDs (CCWG-UCTN) provides a good
>> background https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field
>> -attached/ccwg-ctn-final-paper-15jun17-en.pdf[ccnso.icann.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ccnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_field-2Dattached_ccwg-2Dctn-2Dfinal-2Dpaper-2D15jun17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=nuyejGJVJhYRyF4cYIfL0e4DhWaP6uKNYyDW690HkHU&s=OWnICGYqM_FMik1nO0KGEQ0UecTbxb4i4hpHxHHQgEs&e=>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> The 2012 Applicant Guidebook states the following in relation to
>> geographic terms:
>>
>>
>>
>> *2.2.1.4 Geographic Names Review*
>>
>> Applications for gTLD strings must ensure that appropriate consideration
>> is given to the interests of governments or public authorities in
>> geographic names. The requirements and procedure ICANN will follow in the
>> evaluation process are described in the following paragraphs. Applicants
>> should review these requirements even if they do not believe their intended
>> gTLD string is a geographic name. All applied-for gTLD strings will be
>> reviewed according to the requirements in this section, regardless of
>> whether the application indicates it is for a geographic name.
>>
>> *2.2.1.4.1 Treatment of Country or Territory Names**6*
>>
>> Applications for strings that are country or territory names will not be
>> approved, as they are not available under the New gTLD Program in this
>> application round. A string shall be considered to be a country or
>> territory name if:
>>
>>          i.            it is an alpha-3 code listed in the ISO 3166-1
>> standard.
>>
>>         ii.            it is a long-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1
>> standard, or a translation of the long-form name in any language.
>>
>>       iii.            it is a short-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1
>> standard, or a translation of the short-form name in any language.
>>
>>       iv.            it is the short- or long-form name association with
>> a code that has been designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166
>> Maintenance Agency.
>>
>>        v.            it is a separable component of a country name
>> designated on the “Separable Country Names List,” or is a translation of a
>> name appearing on the list, in any language. See the Annex at the end of
>> this module.
>>
>>       vi.            it is a permutation or transposition of any of the
>> names included in items (i) through (v). 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.”
>>
>> vii. it is 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.
>>
>> *2.2.1.4.2*
>>
>> *Geographic Names Requiring Government Support*
>>
>> The following types of applied-for strings are considered geographic
>> names and must be accompanied by documentation of support or non-objection
>> from the relevant governments or public authorities:
>>
>>    1. An application for any string that is a representation, in any
>>    language, of the *capital city name *of any country or territory
>>    listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard.
>>    2. An application for a *city name*, where the applicant declares
>>    that it intends to use the gTLD for purposes associated with the city name.
>>
>> City names present challenges because city names may also be generic
>> terms or brand names, and in many cases city names are not unique. Unlike
>> other types of geographic names, there are no established lists that can be
>> used as objective references in the evaluation process. Thus, city names
>> are not universally protected. However, the process does provide a means
>> for cities and applicants to work together where desired.
>>
>> An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names
>> requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection
>> from the relevant governments or public authorities) if:
>>
>> (a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the
>> applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city
>> name; and
>>
>>   (b) The applied-for string is a city name as listed on official city
>> documents.7
>>
>>    1. An application for any string that is an exact match of a *sub-national
>>    place name*, such as a county, province, or state, listed in the ISO
>>    3166-2 standard.
>>    2. An application for a string listed as a UNESCO region8 or
>>    appearing on the “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions,
>>    geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings” list.
>>    9
>>
>> In the case of an application for a string appearing on either of the
>> lists above, documentation of support will be required from at least 60% of
>> the respective national governments in the region, and there may be no more
>> than one written statement of objection to the application from relevant
>> governments in the region and/or public authorities associated with the
>> continent or the region.
>>
>> Where the 60% rule is applied, and there are common regions on both
>> lists, the regional composition contained in the “Composition of macro
>> geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected
>> economic and other groupings” takes precedence.
>>
>> An applied-for gTLD string that falls into any of 1 through 4 listed
>> above is considered to represent a geographic name. In the event of any
>> doubt, it is in the applicant’s interest to consult with relevant
>> governments and public authorities and enlist their support or
>> non-objection prior to submission of the application, in order to preclude
>> possible objections and pre-address any ambiguities concerning the string
>> and applicable requirements.
>>
>> Strings that include but do not match a geographic name (as defined in
>> this section) will not be considered geographic names as defined by section
>> 2.2.1.4.2, and therefore will not require documentation of government
>> support in the evaluation process.
>>
>>
>>
>> 6 Country and territory names are excluded from the process based on
>> advice from the Governmental Advisory Committee in recent communiqués
>> providing interpretation of Principle 2.2 of the GAC Principles regarding
>> New gTLDs to indicate that strings which are a meaningful representation or
>> abbreviation of a country or territory name should be handled through the
>> forthcoming ccPDP, and other geographic strings could be allowed in the
>> gTLD space if in agreement with the relevant government or public
>> authority.
>>
>> 7 City governments with concerns about strings that are duplicates,
>> nicknames or close renderings of a city name should not rely on the
>> evaluation process as the primary means of protecting their interests in a
>> string. Rather, a government may elect to file a formal objection to an
>> application that is opposed by the relevant community, or may submit its
>> own application for the string.
>>
>> 8 *See *http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/worldwide/[unesco.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unesco.org_new_en_unesco_worldwide_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=xkyKkaMrpFHC2Y7bYkg2dZgFxuTEPoPOyK6Gp8VdOjo&s=BFlNnYVG3cWU8E7WYL8IM3sAhljIgoJIlNXg7FOY0ZE&e=>
>> .
>> 9 *See *http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm[un
>> stats.un.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__unstats.un.org_unsd_methods_m49_m49regin.htm&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=xkyKkaMrpFHC2Y7bYkg2dZgFxuTEPoPOyK6Gp8VdOjo&s=OUphKkFDZowCxK0Owp9DX4kk3oafMaWuFbNFUpKV-CE&e=>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> *WT5 ACTION*
>>
>> For a potential new applicant guidebook, we need a consensus driven
>> common understanding of geographic identifiers to provide clarity to
>> potential applicants. We would like to gather input from WT5 members,
>> specifically whether the current definition is fit for purpose or not.  If
>> you think there should be changes, specify what these would be (additions,
>> deletions) and the rationale for adding or removing any elements of the
>> definition.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Please submit your comments, ideally by 15 Jan, to provide an
>> opportunity to discuss the input during our next call. *
>>
>>
>>
>> To submit your comment, please use the following link to the document or
>> submit via email specifying:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Contributor name
>>
>> 2. Addition/deletion/amendment to definition
>>
>> 3. Rationale to support the change
>>
>>
>>
>> This will then be added to the google doc which is available here (
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ooKmb576MQJvpHyDYOl
>> JE3M2-Ssnv-SSgVfroT3D7Fc/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1ooKmb576MQJvpHyDYOlJE3M2-2DSsnv-2DSSgVfroT3D7Fc_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=nuyejGJVJhYRyF4cYIfL0e4DhWaP6uKNYyDW690HkHU&s=mtnbymmy0Yx9xFxoDoRHASkcQ8kpTItv6gTKZFoz8Bw&e=>)
>> for those that may wish to populate the document directly.  Please do not
>> amend any other entries as this document will not track changes.
>>
>>
>>
>> We look forward to receiving your input.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>>
>>
>> *WT5 Co-Leaders*
>>
>> Annebeth Lange
>>
>> Christopher Wilkinson
>>
>> Martin Sutton
>>
>> Olga Cavalli
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180121/b5ed16d1/attachment-0001.html>