Good evening: Further to this evening’s conference call, these are the main points that I have made, so far, to the WT5 on geo-names.
Regards
CW
Begin forwarded message:
From: "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Subject: Re: The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments Date: 25 March 2018 at 21:12:56 GMT+2
Dear WT5 Participants:
Further to the Wt5 meeting in San Juan on 14 March, this is just to recall the main points that I made during that discussion.
1. For the new gTLD PDP to move forward with a reasonable delay, we need a new geo-TLD policy now. It would not be a good idea to wait for, or to out-source to other external entities, although in due course, external contributions may become relevant.
2. I suggested that WT5 would save time by discontinuing discussion about ISO 3166. That is an international standard for codes and names representing countries and their subdivisions. As such, it is a well codified sub-set of the generality of geographical names. The bottom line is that within the scope of ISO 3166, ICANN is bound to respect the international standard.
3. It is also not advisable to pursue the idea that the 2012 Applicant Guide Book (AGB) definition of geo-names is a relevant ‘default’. That text failed to address several classes of names that are of significant interest to user communities, a lacunae which gave rise to several disagreements and delays last time around. That should be corrected for the next round, as unambiguously as possible, in the interests of transparency and predictability for the individual users in the locations concerned.
In that context, I regret that the WT5 Terms of Reference do not address those issues explicitly. They will now have to be addressed by WT5.
3. Geographical names are not Generic in the usual semantic or, indeed, ICANN sense. Nearly all of those names are specific to places, cultures, regions, communities and their local economies. The fact that GNSO has taken the lead in the PDP WT5, does not diminish in any way the specific characteristics of geo-names.
The approach to geographical names requires a tailored approach to the evaluation and implementation of such applications, to which I shall return in due course as the WT5 agenda evolves.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson