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-pro...). 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. Best, Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/
Thanks Steve. On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:02 PM Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
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-pro...). 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.
Best, Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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.*
*Steven Chan*
Policy Director, GNSO Support
*ICANN*
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 <https://maps.google.com/?q=12025+Waterfront+Drive,+Suite+300+Los+Angeles,+CA...>
Los Angeles, CA 90094 <https://maps.google.com/?q=12025+Waterfront+Drive,+Suite+300+Los+Angeles,+CA...> -2536
Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
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-e...> .
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO
Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Thank you Steve for the research. Based on the text we then assume that 'due diligence by the applicant is done to inform city governments and provide appropriate documentation supporting the application.'
Alfredo Calderon eLearning Consultant calderon.alfredo@gmail.com |http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com | Skype: Alfredo_1212| wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon
Get your own email signature
On Nov 15, 2018, at 8:03 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Steve.
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:02 PM Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote: 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-pro...). 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.
Best, Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Steven Chan
Policy Director, GNSO Support
ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800
Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO
Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear Alfredo, Can you clarify the source of the quoted text in your email? As to your question, in the circumstances in which, “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 applicant would need to seek documented support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities. Due diligence would probably have been advisable in these cases. In circumstances where the gTLD was not intended for purposes associated with the city name, documentation of support or non-objection should be unnecessary as the gTLD should not be considered a Geographic Name Requiring Government Support under the 2012 Applicant Guidebook criteria. Hopefully I’ve understood your question properly and the response is helpful. Best, Steve From: Alfredo Calderon <calderon.alfredo@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 4:18 PM To: Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> Cc: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Action Item - City Name (i.e., non-capital city name) Definition Research Thank you Steve for the research. Based on the text we then assume that 'due diligence by the applicant is done to inform city governments and provide appropriate documentation supporting the application.' Alfredo Calderon eLearning Consultant calderon.alfredo@gmail.com |http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com [aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com] | Skype: Alfredo_1212| wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon [wiseintro.co] [facebook.com][pr.linkedin.com][twitter.com][plus.google.com][pinterest.com][slideshare.net][klout.com][wiseintro.co] Get your own email signature [wisestamp.com] On Nov 15, 2018, at 8:03 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks Steve. On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:02 PM Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote: 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-pro... [newgtlds.icann.org]). 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. Best, Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 [maps.google.com] Los Angeles, CA 90094 [maps.google.com]-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com] Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com] http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org] _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear Steve: Yes. Your response clarifies my question , "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 applicant would need to seek documented support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities. Due diligence would probably have been advisable in these cases. Thanks.
Alfredo Calderon eLearning Consultant calderon.alfredo@gmail.com |http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com | Skype: Alfredo_1212| wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon
Get your own email signature
On Nov 15, 2018, at 9:15 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Alfredo,
Can you clarify the source of the quoted text in your email?
As to your question, in the circumstances in which, “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 applicant would need to seek documented support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities. Due diligence would probably have been advisable in these cases.
In circumstances where the gTLD was not intended for purposes associated with the city name, documentation of support or non-objection should be unnecessary as the gTLD should not be considered a Geographic Name Requiring Government Support under the 2012 Applicant Guidebook criteria.
Hopefully I’ve understood your question properly and the response is helpful.
Best, Steve
From: Alfredo Calderon <calderon.alfredo@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 4:18 PM To: Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> Cc: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Action Item - City Name (i.e., non-capital city name) Definition Research
Thank you Steve for the research.
Based on the text we then assume that 'due diligence by the applicant is done to inform city governments and provide appropriate documentation supporting the application.'
Alfredo Calderon eLearning Consultant calderon.alfredo@gmail.com |http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com [aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com] | Skype: Alfredo_1212| wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon [wiseintro.co] [facebook.com] [pr.linkedin.com] [twitter.com] [plus.google.com] [pinterest.com] [slideshare.net] [klout.com] [wiseintro.co] Get your own email signature [wisestamp.com]
On Nov 15, 2018, at 8:03 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Steve.
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:02 PM Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote: 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-pro... [newgtlds.icann.org]). 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.
Best, Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support
ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 [maps.google.com] Los Angeles, CA 90094 [maps.google.com]-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org].
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com] Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com] http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org]
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Hi Steve Is this staff work/research or was the Geographic Panel (its members) consulted as we asked for? If not, why? best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Datum: 16. November 2018 um 01:02:51 MEZ Bis: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: [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-pro...). 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. Best, Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 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-e...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/
Dear Steve, thanks for your input! One observation on the work of the Geographic names panel, though: Can you please clarify which lists have been used by the panel for the determination if the string is a geographic name? It seems to me that for instance .java has been overlooked and we might want to avoid this outcome in round 2. One recommendation: To determine whether the applied-for string equates a city name, there are objective references available, e.g. by the UN: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dyb2015/Table08.xls So I would recommend to add this list to their due diligence. Kind regards Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting/> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Steve Chan Gesendet: Freitag, 16. November 2018 01:03 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: [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-pro...). 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. Best, Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 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-e...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/
Hello. I am wondering whether there is anything in the contract of a domain name holder that prevents that holder from selling the name to a higher bidder. I am asking this as it came up in a recent conversation in our community and, given our lengthy discussions here about domain name parking/scalping of city or other geo-names, I have assumed that there were no such restrictions. But, being fairly new here, I was unable to confirm or deny this idea. Thanks for any clarification Marita
Hi Marita, Please clarify your question. "Domain name holder" - what is that supposed to be? Sounds like a "registrant" of a 2nd level domain? But as we are only discussing gTLDs on top level you probably mean the "registry operator"? After the 2012 round I am very sure that EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION will be applied for by using a separate, unique legal entity: "Legal entities" can be minted by the dozen in no time in most jurisdictions. So in other words: You can bet that an applicant entity (and subsequently registry operator) has a unique legal entity as owner of the gTLD (a legal entity that is not involved in ANY other business operation but that gTLD). So there is no real need to "sell the name" (I suppose you mean "the gTLD") - you can simply sell the LEGAL ENTITY; or its shares! If cleverly done that doesn't even need to be reported to ICANN: Only if shares of larger than 15% are being sold, ICANN would look into it (not even sure if that is true AFTER delegation - please if somebody knows: let us know). So you COULD in theory at ANY point of time after the submission of your application "sell the gTLD" (application, applicant, registry operator, whatever stage it is in) to others, if it's being done in 15% share packages to 7 entities e.g. 6 times 15% and one time 10% each to different "owners"). Please correct me if I am wrong! So if you plan to apply for ".shanghai": Just don't designate it as geo-TLD, DO NOT MENTION the word "city" or "China" at all. Then you do NOT need to provide a "letter of non-objection". Once you are sure you are the "winner" (e.g. you where the only applicant, or you won a private auction) you can now approach the biggest real estate magnate in Shanghai, or the biggest media conglomerate: and sell the application by transferring ownership of 7 share packages! It's really THAT simple. I am warning of this since MONTH. Again: if I am mixing facts here: point it out to me. Thanks, Alexander -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 6:35 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] applicant contractual obligations Hello. I am wondering whether there is anything in the contract of a domain name holder that prevents that holder from selling the name to a higher bidder. I am asking this as it came up in a recent conversation in our community and, given our lengthy discussions here about domain name parking/scalping of city or other geo-names, I have assumed that there were no such restrictions. But, being fairly new here, I was unable to confirm or deny this idea. Thanks for any clarification Marita _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Thanks Alexander and anyone else who weights in. Sorry for my misuse of terms -- language is an issue, even for English speakers (sigh). But you realized what I was getting at and answered my question. And so, the suggestion that there might be contract language in place which would prevent the "flipping" (as it is known in the real estate business) of names is incorrect. Indeed, the current situation almost seems to encourage such activity. Marita On 11/16/2018 2:12 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Hi Marita,
Please clarify your question. "Domain name holder" - what is that supposed to be? Sounds like a "registrant" of a 2nd level domain? But as we are only discussing gTLDs on top level you probably mean the "registry operator"?
After the 2012 round I am very sure that EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION will be applied for by using a separate, unique legal entity: "Legal entities" can be minted by the dozen in no time in most jurisdictions.
So in other words: You can bet that an applicant entity (and subsequently registry operator) has a unique legal entity as owner of the gTLD (a legal entity that is not involved in ANY other business operation but that gTLD). So there is no real need to "sell the name" (I suppose you mean "the gTLD") - you can simply sell the LEGAL ENTITY; or its shares! If cleverly done that doesn't even need to be reported to ICANN: Only if shares of larger than 15% are being sold, ICANN would look into it (not even sure if that is true AFTER delegation - please if somebody knows: let us know). So you COULD in theory at ANY point of time after the submission of your application "sell the gTLD" (application, applicant, registry operator, whatever stage it is in) to others, if it's being done in 15% share packages to 7 entities e.g. 6 times 15% and one time 10% each to different "owners"). Please correct me if I am wrong!
So if you plan to apply for ".shanghai": Just don't designate it as geo-TLD, DO NOT MENTION the word "city" or "China" at all. Then you do NOT need to provide a "letter of non-objection". Once you are sure you are the "winner" (e.g. you where the only applicant, or you won a private auction) you can now approach the biggest real estate magnate in Shanghai, or the biggest media conglomerate: and sell the application by transferring ownership of 7 share packages! It's really THAT simple. I am warning of this since MONTH. Again: if I am mixing facts here: point it out to me.
Thanks,
Alexander
-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 6:35 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] applicant contractual obligations
Hello. I am wondering whether there is anything in the contract of a domain name holder that prevents that holder from selling the name to a higher bidder. I am asking this as it came up in a recent conversation in our community and, given our lengthy discussions here about domain name parking/scalping of city or other geo-names, I have assumed that there were no such restrictions. But, being fairly new here, I was unable to confirm or deny this idea.
Thanks for any clarification
Marita _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
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. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 2:03 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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-pro...> https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/evaluation-panels/geo-names-pro...). 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. Best, Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 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-e...> . Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/
+1 How much more time do we have to spend correcting the absurdities of the 2012 AGB? CW
El 18 de noviembre de 2018 a las 16:08 Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> escribió:
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.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 2:03 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@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-pro... https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/evaluation-panels/geo-names-pro... ). 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.
Best, Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Steven Chan
Policy Director, GNSO Support
ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
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-e... .
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO
Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
participants (8)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Alfredo Calderon -
Javier Rua -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH -
lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson -
Marita Moll -
Steve Chan