Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [GAC] Action for WT5 Members - Definition of Geographic Terms
Dear Michelle Tks But I missed that call due to the fact that there is no independent and separate work schedule for this track The schedule is mixed with many other e-mails Once again I respectfully request you to draw up a monthly or bimonthly schedules in. an independent and separate table fir this activities Pls ki fly try to do that Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 16 Jan 2018, at 17:42, Michelle DeSmyter <michelle.desmyter@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Kavouss,
Our next meeting for Work Track 5 is tomorrow, Wednesday, 17 January 2018 at 05:00 UTC, I will forward you the meeting invitation momentarily. I do want to reconfirm with you that we will be dialing out to you at this phone number approximately 5 minutes before the top of the hour at: +49 3256534.
Thank you so much!
Kind regards, Michelle
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 10:34 AM To: "<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [GAC] Action for WT5 Members - Definition of Geographic Terms
Dear Jorge, Thanks for yr swift reply, Let us wait . Note to Secretariat By the way, where is our next meeting ? Regards Kavouss
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:35 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Kavouss
Thank you for your Email. Defining the geonames not covered by the 2012 AGB that would merit being included under the new rules is one of the issues that would need to be further analyzed by wt5.
For the time being I’m just pointing to this issue (which for the 2012 round is IMO quite well-documented in the documentation that has so far been produced)-
Hope this helps
Kind regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. Januar 2018 16:31 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [GAC] Action for WT5 Members - Definition of Geographic Terms
Dear Jorge,
Thank you very much for the message.
You have stated
Quote:
· However, problems in the application of the AGB 2012 related to geonames as Top Level Domains have arisen in relation to those names with a geographic meaning/significance that were not covered under the 2012 AGB rules (we all know some examples that still are lingering today). I would therefore suggest, for the time being, that we include in this definition discussion, the notion that there were names with geographic meaning not covered by the 2012 AGB definitions and rules, which according to a factual analysis have given rise to problems, and that therefore a debate would be warranted, in order to include them under the definitions in a manner to be agreed upon, establishing a framework for mutually agreed outcomes amongst all interested parties in such applications.
May you kindly provide the list of those Geonames?
Regards
Kavouss
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 9:58 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Martin and all,
Due to the timing of tomorrow’s call I’m unsure if I will be able to make it.
Please consider however the following input regarding the definitions mentioned in the 2012 AGB:
· In general the definitions contained in the 2012 AGB have worked well according to the data I’m aware of (for instance the data circulated prior to the webinar organized in April last year).
· However, problems in the application of the AGB 2012 related to geonames as Top Level Domains have arisen in relation to those names with a geographic meaning/significance that were not covered under the 2012 AGB rules (we all know some examples that still are lingering today). I would therefore suggest, for the time being, that we include in this definition discussion, the notion that there were names with geographic meaning not covered by the 2012 AGB definitions and rules, which according to a factual analysis have given rise to problems, and that therefore a debate would be warranted, in order to include them under the definitions in a manner to be agreed upon, establishing a framework for mutually agreed outcomes amongst all interested parties in such applications.
Hope this is helpful
Kind regards
Jorge
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Date: 2018-01-08 19:11 GMT-03:00 Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Action for WT5 Members - Definition of Geographic Terms To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
Dear WT5 Members,
One of the key areas identified during the WT5 TOR discussions related to the definition of geographic terms. This will be a priority focus for us as we begin the substantive work in WT5 and has been highlighted in recent exchanges on the PDP WG mailing list. Defining geographic terms for the purpose of top-level domains will help us to frame our overall work within WT5.
To ensure that all WT5 members are working from the same set of assumptions, we would like to have discussions about the working definition of geographic names at our next meeting on 17 Jan and request input from members prior to the call.
If you are not familiar with the history and context of how the GNSO policies and Applicant Guidebook evolved in relation to geographic terms, the final report of the Cross Community Working Group Framework for the Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs (CCWG-UCTN) provides a good background https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccwg-ctn-final-paper-15jun17-en.pdf[ccnso.icann.org].
The 2012 Applicant Guidebook states the following in relation to geographic terms:
2.2.1.4 Geographic Names Review
Applications for gTLD strings must ensure that appropriate consideration is given to the interests of governments or public authorities in geographic names. The requirements and procedure ICANN will follow in the evaluation process are described in the following paragraphs. Applicants should review these requirements even if they do not believe their intended gTLD string is a geographic name. All applied-for gTLD strings will be reviewed according to the requirements in this section, regardless of whether the application indicates it is for a geographic name.
2.2.1.4.1 Treatment of Country or Territory Names6
Applications for strings that are country or territory names will not be approved, as they are not available under the New gTLD Program in this application round. A string shall be considered to be a country or territory name if:
i. it is an alpha-3 code listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard.
ii. it is a long-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the long-form name in any language.
iii. it is a short-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the short-form name in any language.
iv. it is the short- or long-form name association with a code that has been designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency.
v. it is a separable component of a country name designated on the “Separable Country Names List,” or is a translation of a name appearing on the list, in any language. See the Annex at the end of this module.
vi. it is a permutation or transposition of any of the names included in items (i) through (v). Permutations include removal of spaces, insertion of punctuation, and addition or removal of grammatical articles like “the.” A transposition is considered a change in the sequence of the long or short–form name, for example, “RepublicCzech” or “IslandsCayman.”
vii. it is a name by which a country is commonly known, as demonstrated by evidence that the country is recognized by that name by an intergovernmental or treaty organization.
2.2.1.4.2
Geographic Names Requiring Government Support
The following types of applied-for strings are considered geographic names and must be accompanied by documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities:
An application for any string that is a representation, in any language, of the capital city name of any country or territory listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. 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.7
An application for any string that is an exact match of a sub-national place name, such as a county, province, or state, listed in the ISO 3166-2 standard. An application for a string listed as a UNESCO region8 or appearing on the “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings” list.9 In the case of an application for a string appearing on either of the lists above, documentation of support will be required from at least 60% of the respective national governments in the region, and there may be no more than one written statement of objection to the application from relevant governments in the region and/or public authorities associated with the continent or the region.
Where the 60% rule is applied, and there are common regions on both lists, the regional composition contained in the “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings” takes precedence.
An applied-for gTLD string that falls into any of 1 through 4 listed above is considered to represent a geographic name. In the event of any doubt, it is in the applicant’s interest to consult with relevant governments and public authorities and enlist their support or non-objection prior to submission of the application, in order to preclude possible objections and pre-address any ambiguities concerning the string and applicable requirements.
Strings that include but do not match a geographic name (as defined in this section) will not be considered geographic names as defined by section 2.2.1.4.2, and therefore will not require documentation of government support in the evaluation process.
6 Country and territory names are excluded from the process based on advice from the Governmental Advisory Committee in recent communiqués providing interpretation of Principle 2.2 of the GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs to indicate that strings which are a meaningful representation or abbreviation of a country or territory name should be handled through the forthcoming ccPDP, and other geographic strings could be allowed in the gTLD space if in agreement with the relevant government or public authority.
7 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.
8 See http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/worldwide/[unesco.org]. 9 See http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm[unstats.un.org].
WT5 ACTION
For a potential new applicant guidebook, we need a consensus driven common understanding of geographic identifiers to provide clarity to potential applicants. We would like to gather input from WT5 members, specifically whether the current definition is fit for purpose or not. If you think there should be changes, specify what these would be (additions, deletions) and the rationale for adding or removing any elements of the definition.
Please submit your comments, ideally by 15 Jan, to provide an opportunity to discuss the input during our next call.
To submit your comment, please use the following link to the document or submit via email specifying:
1. Contributor name
2. Addition/deletion/amendment to definition
3. Rationale to support the change
This will then be added to the google doc which is available here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ooKmb576MQJvpHyDYOlJE3M2-Ssnv-SSgVfroT3D7Fc/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com]) for those that may wish to populate the document directly. Please do not amend any other entries as this document will not track changes.
We look forward to receiving your input.
Kind regards
WT5 Co-Leaders
Annebeth Lange
Christopher Wilkinson
Martin Sutton
Olga Cavalli
_______________________________________________ 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 Michelle, Tks for reply Pls note that my téléphone number IS NOT +49 3256534 as it is in fact +41 79 325 65 34 . pls kindly consider that i have asked you to respectfully provide me in a table the SCHEDULE of the meetings of the main group as well as that of Track 5 i need that info regards Kvouss On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Michelle Tks But I missed that call due to the fact that there is no independent and separate work schedule for this track The schedule is mixed with many other e-mails Once again I respectfully request you to draw up a monthly or bimonthly schedules in. an independent and separate table fir this activities Pls ki fly try to do that Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 16 Jan 2018, at 17:42, Michelle DeSmyter <michelle.desmyter@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Kavouss,
Our next meeting for Work Track 5 is tomorrow, Wednesday, 17 January 2018 at 05:00 UTC, I will forward you the meeting invitation momentarily. I do want to reconfirm with you that we will be dialing out to you at this phone number approximately 5 minutes before the top of the hour at: +49 3256534.
Thank you so much!
Kind regards, Michelle
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 10:34 AM To: "<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [GAC] Action for WT5 Members - Definition of Geographic Terms
Dear Jorge, Thanks for yr swift reply, Let us wait . Note to Secretariat By the way, where is our next meeting ? Regards Kavouss
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:35 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
Thank you for your Email. Defining the geonames not covered by the 2012 AGB that would merit being included under the new rules is one of the issues that would need to be further analyzed by wt5.
For the time being I’m just pointing to this issue (which for the 2012 round is IMO quite well-documented in the documentation that has so far been produced)-
Hope this helps
Kind regards
Jorge
*Von:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 16. Januar 2018 16:31 *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [GAC] Action for WT5 Members - Definition of Geographic Terms
Dear Jorge,
Thank you very much for the message.
You have stated
Quote:
*·* *However, problems in the application of the AGB 2012 related to geonames as Top Level Domains have arisen in relation to **those names with a geographic meaning/significance that were not covered under the 2012 AGB rules **(we all know some examples that still are lingering today). I would therefore suggest, for the time being, that we include in this definition discussion, the notion that there were names with geographic meaning not covered by the 2012 AGB definitions and rules, which according to a factual analysis have given rise to problems, and that therefore a debate would be warranted, in order to include them under the definitions in a manner to be agreed upon, establishing a framework for mutually agreed outcomes amongst all interested parties in such applications.*
*May you kindly provide the list of those Geonames?*
*Regards*
*Kavouss *
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 9:58 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Martin and all,
Due to the timing of tomorrow’s call I’m unsure if I will be able to make it.
Please consider however the following input regarding the definitions mentioned in the 2012 AGB:
· In general the definitions contained in the 2012 AGB have worked well according to the data I’m aware of (for instance the data circulated prior to the webinar organized in April last year).
· However, problems in the application of the AGB 2012 related to geonames as Top Level Domains have arisen in relation to those names with a geographic meaning/significance that were not covered under the 2012 AGB rules (we all know some examples that still are lingering today). I would therefore suggest, for the time being, that we include in this definition discussion, the notion that there were names with geographic meaning not covered by the 2012 AGB definitions and rules, which according to a factual analysis have given rise to problems, and that therefore a debate would be warranted, in order to include them under the definitions in a manner to be agreed upon, establishing a framework for mutually agreed outcomes amongst all interested parties in such applications.
Hope this is helpful
Kind regards
Jorge
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Martin Sutton* <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Date: 2018-01-08 19:11 GMT-03:00 Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Action for WT5 Members - Definition of Geographic Terms To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>
Dear WT5 Members,
One of the key areas identified during the WT5 TOR discussions related to the definition of geographic terms. This will be a priority focus for us as we begin the substantive work in WT5 and has been highlighted in recent exchanges on the PDP WG mailing list. Defining geographic terms for the purpose of top-level domains will help us to frame our overall work within WT5.
To ensure that all WT5 members are working from the same set of assumptions, we would like to have discussions about the working definition of geographic names at our next meeting on 17 Jan and request input from members prior to the call.
If you are not familiar with the history and context of how the GNSO policies and Applicant Guidebook evolved in relation to geographic terms, the final report of the Cross Community Working Group Framework for the Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs (CCWG-UCTN) provides a good background https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field -attached/ccwg-ctn-final-paper-15jun17-en.pdf[ccnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ccnso.icann.org_sites_d...> .
The 2012 Applicant Guidebook states the following in relation to geographic terms:
*2.2.1.4 Geographic Names Review*
Applications for gTLD strings must ensure that appropriate consideration is given to the interests of governments or public authorities in geographic names. The requirements and procedure ICANN will follow in the evaluation process are described in the following paragraphs. Applicants should review these requirements even if they do not believe their intended gTLD string is a geographic name. All applied-for gTLD strings will be reviewed according to the requirements in this section, regardless of whether the application indicates it is for a geographic name.
*2.2.1.4.1 Treatment of Country or Territory Names**6*
Applications for strings that are country or territory names will not be approved, as they are not available under the New gTLD Program in this application round. A string shall be considered to be a country or territory name if:
i. it is an alpha-3 code listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard.
ii. it is a long-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the long-form name in any language.
iii. it is a short-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the short-form name in any language.
iv. it is the short- or long-form name association with a code that has been designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency.
v. it is a separable component of a country name designated on the “Separable Country Names List,” or is a translation of a name appearing on the list, in any language. See the Annex at the end of this module.
vi. it is a permutation or transposition of any of the names included in items (i) through (v). Permutations include removal of spaces, insertion of punctuation, and addition or removal of grammatical articles like “the.” A transposition is considered a change in the sequence of the long or short–form name, for example, “RepublicCzech” or “IslandsCayman.”
vii. it is a name by which a country is commonly known, as demonstrated by evidence that the country is recognized by that name by an intergovernmental or treaty organization.
*2.2.1.4.2*
*Geographic Names Requiring Government Support*
The following types of applied-for strings are considered geographic names and must be accompanied by documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities:
1. An application for any string that is a representation, in any language, of the *capital city name *of any country or territory listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. 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.7
1. An application for any string that is an exact match of a *sub-national place name*, such as a county, province, or state, listed in the ISO 3166-2 standard. 2. An application for a string listed as a UNESCO region8 or appearing on the “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings” list. 9
In the case of an application for a string appearing on either of the lists above, documentation of support will be required from at least 60% of the respective national governments in the region, and there may be no more than one written statement of objection to the application from relevant governments in the region and/or public authorities associated with the continent or the region.
Where the 60% rule is applied, and there are common regions on both lists, the regional composition contained in the “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings” takes precedence.
An applied-for gTLD string that falls into any of 1 through 4 listed above is considered to represent a geographic name. In the event of any doubt, it is in the applicant’s interest to consult with relevant governments and public authorities and enlist their support or non-objection prior to submission of the application, in order to preclude possible objections and pre-address any ambiguities concerning the string and applicable requirements.
Strings that include but do not match a geographic name (as defined in this section) will not be considered geographic names as defined by section 2.2.1.4.2, and therefore will not require documentation of government support in the evaluation process.
6 Country and territory names are excluded from the process based on advice from the Governmental Advisory Committee in recent communiqués providing interpretation of Principle 2.2 of the GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs to indicate that strings which are a meaningful representation or abbreviation of a country or territory name should be handled through the forthcoming ccPDP, and other geographic strings could be allowed in the gTLD space if in agreement with the relevant government or public authority.
7 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.
8 *See *http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/worldwide/[unesco.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unesco.org_new_en_un...> . 9 *See *http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm[un stats.un.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__unstats.un.org_unsd_meth...> .
*WT5 ACTION*
For a potential new applicant guidebook, we need a consensus driven common understanding of geographic identifiers to provide clarity to potential applicants. We would like to gather input from WT5 members, specifically whether the current definition is fit for purpose or not. If you think there should be changes, specify what these would be (additions, deletions) and the rationale for adding or removing any elements of the definition.
*Please submit your comments, ideally by 15 Jan, to provide an opportunity to discuss the input during our next call. *
To submit your comment, please use the following link to the document or submit via email specifying:
1. Contributor name
2. Addition/deletion/amendment to definition
3. Rationale to support the change
This will then be added to the google doc which is available here ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ooKmb576MQJvpHyDYOl JE3M2-Ssnv-SSgVfroT3D7Fc/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...>) for those that may wish to populate the document directly. Please do not amend any other entries as this document will not track changes.
We look forward to receiving your input.
Kind regards
*WT5 Co-Leaders*
Annebeth Lange
Christopher Wilkinson
Martin Sutton
Olga Cavalli
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (2)
-
Arasteh -
Kavouss Arasteh