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

Fri Nov 16 22:26:48 UTC 2018

Dear Katrin,

Per section 2.2.1.4.2 of the Applicant Guidebook, the lists available to the Geographic Names Panel in 2012 (excluding country and territory names) included:
ISO 3166-1 for capital city names
No established list, as noted, for non-capital city names
ISO 3166-2 for sub-national place names, such as a county, province, or state name.
UNESCO Regions here: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/worldwide/ and “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings” here: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm, which now redirects to: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/

I would like to emphasize that my responses have been in relation to the Geographic Names Panel and the Applicant Guidebook for the 2012 New gTLD Program. If the Work Track believes that errors may have been made or that additional terms require protections, that is of course for the Work Track to determine. 

In regards to your recommendation, I would note that the Work Track put forth a number of suggested sources for development of a list of non-capital city names to potentially be used in subsequent procedures, including the one you’ve linked to below. Please see section f.2.3.2 Non-Capital City Names of the draft Initial Report to ensure it has been properly accounted for.

Best,

Steve

From: Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer at dotzon.com>
Date: Friday, November 16, 2018 at 3:47 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] AW: Action Item - City Name (i.e., non-capital city name) Definition Research

Dear Steve,

thanks for your input!

One observation on the work of the Geographic names panel, though: Can you please clarify which lists have been used by the panel for the determination if the string is a geographic name? It seems to me that for instance .java has been overlooked and we might want to avoid this outcome in round 2.

One recommendation: To determine whether the applied-for string equates a city name, there are objective references available, e.g. by the UN: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dyb2015/Table08.xls [unstats.un.org]  So I would recommend to add this list to their due diligence.

Kind regards

Katrin

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

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

Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> Im Auftrag von Steve Chan
Gesendet: Freitag, 16. November 2018 01:03
An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Action Item - City Name (i.e., non-capital city name) Definition Research

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

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536

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]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20181116/e9d3deb7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4600 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20181116/e9d3deb7/smime-0001.p7s>