Colleagues, despite the great discussion we had on the cpwg call on Wednesday, we ran out of time and we need more input on the following issue in the sub.pro. WT5 request for comments on geo-names: */Preliminary Recommendation 11/* */Work Track 5 recommends continuing to consider the following category a geographic name requiring government support at the top level. Applications for these strings must be accompanied by documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities if://**/* * /**/ /*An application for a city name, where the applicant declares that it intends to use the gTLD for purposes associated with the city name. 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 *//*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*/ /**/ /**The suggestion is that we support PR #11– but because of uncertainty over “primarily” and enforcement of limitation (i.e. can be circumvented by not declaring intended use or declaring another intended use) requirement for support/non-objection letter should be the sole mechanism for city name applications**/ ** *** There was a deep split in the work track on this issue. One of our members is on record (see google doc) as opposing the suggestion that there be a requirement for a letter of support/non-objection in all cases. Please let us know where you stand. You can enter your comments directly into the google.doc or send them to the list and we will assemble. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BQIg8Y2igjRmTDHbmBr-ahuovp7EXrOBwa6SArEB... Thanks Marita and Justine