ALAC: Advice to the ICANN Board on Subsequent Procedures (R-11A)

Date IssuedDocumentReference IDCurrent Phase

 

ALAC: Advice to the ICANN Board on Subsequent Procedures (R-11A)AL-ALAC-ST-0421-02-01-EN (R-11A)

CLOSED



  1. Phase 1 Receive
  2. Phase 2 Understand
  3. Phase 3 Evaluate
  4. Phase 4 Implement
  5. Phase 5 Close
  6. Closed


DESCRIPTION

Despite the welcomed retention of much of the 2012 AGB implementation relating to Geographic Name at the Top Level (and their adoption as new consensus policy in place of the much less favourable ones in the GNSO 2007 Consensus Policy), the ALAC remains concerned over the insufficient support within the community for the need to respect and take into consideration the voice of stakeholders to future applications for strings matching many names with geographical meaning.


DEPENDENCIES

Progress pending the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Report.


STATUS UPDATES

DatePhaseTypeStatus Updates

 

ClosedPhase ChangeThis Advice Item is now Closed

 

Phase 2Board UpdateA letter (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-zuck-22may23-en.pdf) was sent to the RSSAC regarding the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) Advice to the ICANN Board on the Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) Policy Development Process (PDP) Recommendations. Following the adoption of the Resolution and with the considerations described below, the Board believes that there is no further action required to address those aspects of the ALAC’s Advice relating to the Board’s decision on the Final Report, as these have already been taken One World, One Internet icann.org into account during its deliberations. Therefore, the Board regards these Advice items to have been fully considered.

 

Phase 2Phase UpdateThe ICANN Board and Org are currently reviewing and considering this advice. In December 2022, ICANN org delivered the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Operational Assessment to the Board, which identified the ALAC's advice as an item that may need a decision or action be taken before the next round is to proceed. On 16 March 2023, the Board adopted 98 recommendations contained in the New Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) Policy Development Process Final Report (Final Report). The Board's 16 March 2023 resolution acknowledged the ALAC's contributions on the Final Report, which was used to inform the Board's deliberations on the Final Report recommendations. The Board continues to review and consider the ALAC advice to determine whether there are actionable items that may require Board action now that the Board has taken action on a substantial number of SubPro policy recommendations. The Board anticipates that this exercise will be completed in the first half of 2023 and that a response to the advice would come before the Board takes action on the remaining SubPro policy recommendations.

 

Phase 2Phase UpdateAs noted at the joint Board-ALAC session at ICANN75, the Board greatly appreciates the ALAC's responses to the Board's questions. The Board continues to review and consider the ALAC advice, to determine whether, in addition to informing the Board’s deliberations, there are actionable items that may require Board action before (or after) the Board takes action on the SubPro policy recommendations. The Board anticipates that this exercise will be completed in the first half of 2023 and that a response to the advice would come at the time of action on the SubPro Final Report – or shortly thereafter.

 

Phase 2AP FeedbackThe events arising from the application for “.AMAZON” suggest the problematic nature of existing policy with respect to strings with geographical meaning. We reiterate that ICANN must respect local laws which sought to provide rights and/or priority to applicable names of places, or even grant protection for such names as a duty for relevant public bodies/authorities to uphold. Examples of such applicable local laws that have been brought to our attention are: (i) Switzerland’s Art. 29 of the Civil Code (CC); (ii) Germany’s Art. 12 of the Civil Code (BGB); and (iii) France’s France: Art. L45-2 of the post and electronic communication Act (Code des postes et des communications électroniques) and art. L.711-4 of the Intellectual Property Code (code de la propriété intellectuelle). We have been made to understand these laws clearly apply in the DNS space, and although the reported cases mostly apply to second level domain name registrations, we see no reason why motivations of these laws would not apply to TLDs also. We also reiterate that ICANN should respect the interests of local communities/actors to strings that match place names or names with geographical meaning in their location, beyond simply recognizing international trademark laws as the defining basis for determining priority over such strings. Most significantly we are concerned that strings matching the names of large, populous non-capital cities (for eg, Shanghai) are not subject to a stronger preventive protection of requiring letters of support/non-objection from relevant local governmental/public authorities irrespective of the applicant’s declared use of the TLD. Ultimately, we should be amenable to preventing unintended consequences of an application for large non-capital city name strings from being snapped up simply because we assume that the relevant local governmental/public authorities (especially those that aren’t well versed with ICANN) are aware that they had the opportunity to object. In this respect, requiring the applicant to approach relevant local governmental/public authorities is more reasonable than placing the burden squarely on the relevant governmental/public authorities to be aware of and to object to applications for such name strings.

 

Phase 2Clarifying QuestionThe Board notes the complexities surrounding the legal definition of geographic names, as evidenced by the application for .AMAZON. Can the ALAC provide any additional insight into defining a geographic name, e.g., from legal or case studies?

 

Phase 2Phase ChangeNow Phase 2

 

Phase 1Phase UpdateAcknowledgment sent to ALAC.

 

Phase 1Phase UpdateALAC published AL-ALAC-ST-0421-02-01-EN: Advice to the ICANN Board on Subsequent Procedures: https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/13823.