[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Action Item - City Name (i.e., non-capital city name) Definition Research
alexander at schubert.berlin
Sun Nov 18 15:08:27 UTC 2018
Dear WT 5,
Looking at the geo panel evaluation documentation something becomes even more clear to me! I want to highlight a random application from 2012; I picked one from the applicant that had most applications out there: Donuts and “.bike!
If you look into their application and search it for the keywords “bike” and “bicycle” or “motorbike” (or literally ANY keywo4rd associated with “bike”) you will notice: It is not there! Instead it reads:
“DONUTS’ INTENTION FOR THIS TLD
As a senior government authority has recently said, “a successful applicant is entrusted with operating a critical piece of global Internet infrastructure.” Donuts’ plan and intent is for this TLD to serve the international community by bringing new users online through opportunities for economic growth, increased productivity, the exchange of ideas and information and greater self-expression.”
Yap: you do not find the words bicycle or bike in the ENTIRE application.
Now imagine Donuts had (unwittingly, or on purpose) applied for a multi-million city name! Say “Juegos” (one of their applications) were a city of 8 million in Nigeria (without them having been aware). Or say they had applied for “.shanghai” – a city of 24 Million people! If Shanghai were a country, then only 50 other countries were larger population wise and 180 countries were SMALLER! Imagine they had chosen the same application text as for .bike! The geo names panel would be FORCED to let the application pass; because the applicant has NOT made any statements that he “will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name”.
We have that provision all wrong:
““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 requirement applies 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 …..”
It can’t be the APPLICANT who is calling the shots here, and it shouldn’t be “primarily” but “significantly”. Hence again my suggestion (as already for comment in the WT5 draft):
“(a) The Geographic Names Panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name.”
Some said that we shouldn’t even mention “2nd level domains” – so in an update I suggested to formulate it: “…. that the foreseeable use of the GTLD will be to ……“
Anybody who wants to create a business advantage over those who abide by the rules and enter into public tenders with the city, and invest a lot of time, energy and money in working WITH the city can simply circumvent the requirement for a letter of non-objection by just NOT defining what the gTLD will be exactly used for. That’s crazy – and very unfair to those who play by the rules. If it comes to an auction between such applicants; obviously the cheater has a SIGNIFICANT commercial advantage; and will win! Is it THAT how we try to serve the Internet Community and city communities? REALLY?
Now there is even that suggestion of a “bright line” (a nice euphemism for a brutal suppression of civil rights: Being able to object)! So nobody could even OBJECT anymore if some brand or a cheater tried to occupy city gTLD land.
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 2:03 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
Subject: [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> https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/evaluation-panels/geo-names-process-07jun13-en.pdf). 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.
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.
Policy Director, GNSO Support
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800
Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers> .
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO
Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5