[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [Ext] Re: Action Item - City Name (i.e., non-capital city name) Definition Research

Fri Nov 16 10:35:44 UTC 2018

Dear Steve:

Yes. Your response clarifies my question , "An application for a city name, where the applicant declares that it intends to use the gTLD for purposes associated with the city name,” the applicant would need to seek documented support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities. Due diligence would probably have been advisable in these cases.

Thanks.

> 		
> Alfredo Calderon
> eLearning Consultant 
> calderon.alfredo at gmail.com |http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com | Skype: Alfredo_1212| wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get your own email signature
>  

> On Nov 15, 2018, at 9:15 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear Alfredo,
>  
> Can you clarify the source of the quoted text in your email?
>  
> As to your question, in the circumstances in which, “An application for a city name, where the applicant declares that it intends to use the gTLD for purposes associated with the city name,” the applicant would need to seek documented support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities. Due diligence would probably have been advisable in these cases.
>  
> In circumstances where the gTLD was not intended for purposes associated with the city name, documentation of support or non-objection should be unnecessary as the gTLD should not be considered a Geographic Name Requiring Government Support under the 2012 Applicant Guidebook criteria.
>  
> Hopefully I’ve understood your question properly and the response is helpful.
>  
> Best,
> Steve
>  
> From: Alfredo Calderon <calderon.alfredo at gmail.com>
> Date: Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 4:18 PM
> To: Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com>
> Cc: Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Action Item - City Name (i.e., non-capital city name) Definition Research
>  
> Thank you Steve for the research.
>  
> Based on the text we then assume that 'due diligence by the applicant is done to inform city governments and provide appropriate documentation supporting the application.'
> 
> 
> Alfredo Calderon
> eLearning Consultant 
> calderon.alfredo at gmail.com |http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com [aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com] | Skype: Alfredo_1212| wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon [wiseintro.co]
> [facebook.com]
> [pr.linkedin.com]
> [twitter.com]
> [plus.google.com]
> [pinterest.com]
> [slideshare.net]
> [klout.com]
> [wiseintro.co]
> Get your own email signature [wisestamp.com]
>  
> 
> On Nov 15, 2018, at 8:03 PM, Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Steve.
>  
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:02 PM Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org> wrote:
> Dear Work Track 5 Members,
>  
> During the Work Track 5 sessions at ICANN63, some participants expressed the belief that the Geographic Names Panel must have utilized a definition to identify applied-for gTLDs that were non-capital city names. Determining if there was a definition, and tracking it down, was an action item from this session. 
>  
> As a first step, staff reviewed the Evaluation Panel Process Documentation for the Geographic Names Panel (here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/evaluation-panels/geo-names-process-07jun13-en.pdf [newgtlds.icann.org]). Here, we understand that all applications are checked against country or territory names (or other lists that would cause the applied-for TLD to be ineligible for delegation), regardless of whether the applicant believes the string is Geographic Name. 
>  
> Assuming the applied-for string passes this initial lookup, the panel will then review the application and the applied-for gTLD to determine whether or not the string is a Geographic Name (again, regardless of whether the applicant believes the string is Geographic Name).
>  
> In some circumstances, where there is a precise list for the Geographic Names Panel to use as a reference (e.g., capital city names, sub-national place name, UNESCO region or appearing on the “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings” list), this process is relatively straight-forward. 
>  
> However, for city names (or non-capital city names as they are being referred to in Work Track 5), there is no objective reference to utilize. In this circumstance, per the Applicant Guidebook, the string AND the applicant’s statements in their application were considered collectively to determine whether the applied-for string should be subject to the geographic names requirements. As such, there does not appear to be a definition that can be leveraged by Work Track 5. For your convenience, the city name Geographic Names criteria is reproduced below.
>  
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>  
> Best,
> Steve
>  
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>  
> 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. [**see footnote below]
>  
>  
> ** 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.
>  
>  
>  
> Steven Chan
> Policy Director, GNSO Support
>  
> ICANN
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 [maps.google.com]
> Los Angeles, CA 90094 [maps.google.com]-2536
> Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
> Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800
> Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649
>  
> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org].
>  
> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com]
> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com]
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org]
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181116/6c2e8054/attachment-0001.html>