*Request for feedback on proposal re: definitions either on list or in the google doc: * *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BQIg8Y2igjRmTDHbmBr-ahuovp7EXrOBwa6SArEB... * ** *Question e2* * The definition of the term “geographic name” 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 “geographic name” 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 “geographic name”? Is “geographic name” the appropriate term to use in this context, as opposed to, for example, “term with geographic meaning”? 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 cultural 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*