[lac-discuss-en] Fwd: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Sub. pro. WT5 - definition of geonames
<tbt>
Dear friends
New demand for your consideration Feel free to send your comments on it to be
considered
Kisses
Vanda Scartezini
Sent from my iPhone
Sorry for typos
Begin forwarded message:
From: Marita Moll <mmoll@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 18 January 2019 21:36:19 GMT-2 To:
CPWG <cpwg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Sub. pro. WT5 - definition of
geonames
Request for feedback on proposal re: definitions either on list or in the
google doc:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BQIg8Y2igjRmTDHbmBr-ahuovp7EXrOBwa6SArEB2K0/edit#
Question e2 The definition of the term â??geographic nameâ?? could impact
development of policy and implementation guidance, as well as program
implementation details, such as guidance for the Geographic Names Panel in the
New gTLD application process. In your view, how should the term â??geographic
nameâ?? be defined for the purposes of the New gTLD Program? Should there be
any special requirements or implications for a term that is considered a
â??geographic nameâ??? Is â??geographic nameâ?? the appropriate term to use in
this context, as opposed to, for example, â??term with geographic meaningâ???
Why or why not
Proposed ALAC response: A clear definition of "geographic name" is certainly
lacking in this discussion. Perhaps what is needed is to separate "man-made"
places from natural features. In practice, most geographic names that the AGB
covers, and that have been discussed in WT 5, refer to some sort of inhabited
administrative units of any size that are clearly delimited in area and that
are under one political authority. ( UNESCO regions are an exception). ALAC
suggests that such administrative units should be Category 1 geographic names.
So far, WT5 has only dealt with Category 1 names and all proposals so far could
be taken to refer to Category 1 names only.
Category 2 would be all the rest: mountains, rivers, seas, plains, moors,
marches, etc., tentatively called "geographic features". Category 2 could be
dealt with as special cases, according to guidelines yet to be drawn. Perhaps
there should be panel competent to evaluate the historical and cultuâ??ral
values and sensitivities that are attached to such names.
In case a name belongs to both, Category 1 takes precedence. It is proposed
that WT5 continue to deal first with Category 1 names.
Thanks
Marita and Justine
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list
CPWG@xxxxxxxxx https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list
GTLD-WG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg Working Group direct
URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs