Comment Close
Date
Statement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s)

Call for
Comments Open
Call for
Comments
Close 
Vote
Announcement 
Vote OpenVote
Reminder
Vote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number
15.11.2014Draft Document from GAC Sub-Group on Geographic NamesADOPTED 13Y, 0N, 0A

Rafid Fatani

Leon Sanchez

Thomas Lowenhaupt

16.10.201424.10.2014 23:59 UTC03.11.2014 23:59 UTC03.11.2014 23:59 UTC09.11.201410.11.2014 23:59 UTC11.11.2014

future-geo-doc-comments@gac.icann.org

AL-ALAC-ST-1114-01-01-EN

For information about this Community Input Request, please click here 

Dear SO-AC-SG leaders, 

The GAC Sub-group on Geographic Names (which is a Sub-group of the GAC Working Group on Future New gTLDs) has developed a draft document for future New gTLD rounds outlining several public policy aspects related to geographic names and is currently seeking community input on the attached draft text (also announced on the GAC website at http://tinyurl.com/kzt8kbg).  A previous version of this draft was presented in a public session during the London ICANN/GAC meetings and a similar session is planned for the October ICANN/GAC meetings in Los Angeles.  The Working Group believes the receipt of community input on the current draft document would be beneficial to the October discussions, and further welcomes comments from all interested parties by October 31, 2014. 

Comments may be submitted to future-geo-doc-comments@gac.icann.org . Comments received will be posted on http://tinyurl.com/nc4knhn.

Your assistance in notifying your community members about this opportunity would be much appreciated.

Very best regards

Olof

--------------------

 

Olof Nordling
Senior Director, GAC Relations

Branch Manager, ICANN Brussels office
ICANN

Please click here to download a copy of the Draft document from GAC Sub-group on Geographic Names

 

FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED

Please click here to download a copy of the pdf document below. 



FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

The ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) welcomes the call for comments by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) Sub-working group for protection of geographic names on the paper "The protection of names in the new gTLDs process V3 - August 29 2014"  and hereby submits the following comments:

1. The ALAC supports the scope of the draft document and recommends that protection of geographic names must be addressed in next rounds of new gTLDs to avoid preventable conflict situations that have been observed during the current round.

Additionally, we advocate a strengthening of the nexus between an application for a geographic TLD and the public interest of the geographic area for which a TLD is sought. The following are offered as steps to facilitate advancement of the public interest:

  • A compilation of experiences of the 2012 applicants for geographic TLDs should be made available to applicants for geographic TLDs.
  • This compilation should detail the impact the 2012 geographic TLDs had on their respective areas including, but not limited to, traditional and new businesses, civic organizations, government operations, religious and cultural groups. 
  • Geographic areas for which TLD applications are submitted should be required to demonstrate and certify their "Informed Consent" about the scope and impact a geographic TLD might have of their residents and organizations. This Informed Consent shall be demonstrated by certification of awareness of the 2012 geographic TLD experiences, and the possible utility of a TLD on the social and economic life of a geographic area.
  • This Informed Consent shall have been established through inclusive engagement of residents and organizations, including Internet stakeholders, from the applicant area.
  • The TLD application of an applicant for a geographic TLD shall indicate an ongoing process for residents, community-based organizations, academic institutions, faith-based groups, professional organizations, government, and the Internet community to engage in the TLD's governance processes at the local, national, and global levels.

2. The ALAC also suggests that the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) be modified to consider international treaties that address those rights of countries in relation with geographic names. A suggested change is marked in bold below:

"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, taking into consideration that, according with the 2007 GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs, ICANN should avoid country, territory or place names, and country, territory or regional language or people descriptions, unless in agreement with the relevant governments or public authorities and in compliance with applicable international law treaties. 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."


FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

The ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) welcomes the call for comments on the document produced by the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) Sub-working group for protection of geographic names in next rounds of new gTLDs, and hereby submits the following comments:

1. The ALAC supports the scope of the draft document and recommends that protection of geographic names must be addressed in next rounds of new gTLDs, in order to avoid preventable conflict situations that have been observed during the current round.

2. The ALAC Advises the Board that the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) be modified to consider international treaties that address those rights of countries in relation with geographic names. A suggested change could read as follows (marked in bold):

"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, taking into consideration that, according with the 2007 GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs, ICANN should avoid country, territory or place names, and country, territory or regional language or people descriptions, unless in agreement with the relevant governments or public authorities and in compliance with applicable international law treaties. 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.

 “Nevertheless, 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.”

 3. The ALAC further Advises the Board that a mechanism to protect underserved and underdeveloped interested parties be put in place as to address those cases in which the geographic name is shared by multiple parties in which one of the involved parties is least developed than the rest of the parties.

 

  • No labels

21 Comments

  1. Doing my first thorough reading. Expect to make comments by Sunday.

  2. I agree completely with the substance. Comment about process. Is this a response to a call for comments, advice to the Board, or both? Wording will be slightly different, depending on the target audience.
  3. I note that the Mandate calls for "protection of terms with national, cultural, geographic and religious significance..." with the vast majority of conversation focusing thereafter on geographic names.

    With the geographic names drawing the majority of my attention, I find it easy to comment hereafter on those names. But I'd like to encourage those with knowledge or concern about national, cultural, geographic and religious significance to address those concerns during this comment opportunity.

    1. After reviewing the source document for a second time, I'm going to presume that this Sub-working group is focusing on geographic names, and that other entities are looking into names of national, cultural, and religious significance.

      Should this assumption be incorrect, a comment from At-Large noting the narrow nature of this Sub-working group might be appropriate.

  4. Within the scope of discussion about geographic names, there seems to be two closely related themes: first, identifying domain names that are in essence the names of geographic entities, and second, receiving approval of the entity the names represent.

    Some good ideas were expressed for methods for improving the gathering of geographic names.

    But the level of approval to be received from identified geographic communities was wanting, consisting of the submission of a letter of "support or non-objection" from the relevant geographic entity.

    I'm engaged with the development of the .nyc TLD at several levels: as a resident, as CEO of a not-for-profit focused on the development of the city's TLD as a public interest resource, as a member of an At-Large Structure, and as a member of the mayor's .NYC Community Advisory Board.

    Through each of those roles I'm finding instances where even a seeming sophisticated city such as New York entered into a TLD engagement process without suitable knowledge of a TLD's potential impact on the social, economic, and political life of its urban environment.

    These impacts are only becoming clear as the TLD is being "rolled out." How long it might take to discern the full impact of a TLD on these and other aspects of urban life is a question to be answered by historians. But with New York City just 11 days into General Availability of .nyc domain names, I can confidentially say we've not yet arrived at a suitable level of understanding to discern its impact. (I don't think NYC is alone in that regard.)

    Before new city TLDs are issued we should have a thorough assessment of the impact they are having on the initial coterie of cities. Small businesses, civic organizations, residents, government officials and operations - public safety, school, health providers, and the Internet community (minimally) should be consulted.

    This information should be compiled and presented to cities considering acquisition and development of their TLDs. These new city-TLD applicants should be required to indicate a level of Informed Consent along with their TLD applications. This Informed Consent might be defined as follows:

    "Informed Consent indicates demonstrated awareness of the experiential utility and declared potential of a TLD to address the social and economic needs of a geographic area."

    As this advice is being presented to the GAC and its sub working group by the At-Large, it would also be beneficial to suggest a level of engagement of the "bottom" (as in bottom-up) in formulating the city's plan to use the domain name as a public interest resource. Indeed, the applicant city should be required to detail a governance process that demonstrates multistakeholder components.

    These criteria are not to imply that the public interest might not, in some instances, be best served by selling off the names in a standard model mode to raise funds for the applicant city. As long as Informed Consent is provided by the applicant city, with the broad multistakeholder community providing its assent, the standard model can be embraced.

    1. Based my above comments, I'd like to offer the following modifications, in blue, to the first draft:

      FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

      The ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) welcomes the call for comments on the document produced by the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) Sub-working group for protection of geographic names in next rounds of new gTLDs, and hereby submits the following comments:

      1. The ALAC supports the scope of the draft document and recommends that protection of geographic names must be addressed in next rounds of new gTLDs, in order to avoid preventable conflict situations that have been observed during the current round.

      ---

      We advocate a strengthening of the nexus between an application for a geographic TLD and the public interest of the geographic area for which a TLD is sought. The following are offered as steps to facilitate advancement of the public interest:

      • A compilation of experiences of the 2012 applicants for geographic TLDs should be made available to applicants for geographic TLDs.
      • This compilation should detail the impact the 2012 geographic TLDs had on their respective areas including, but not limited to, traditional and new businesses, civic organizations, government operations, religious and cultural groups. 
      • Geographic areas for which TLD applications are submitted should be required to demonstrate and certify their "Informed Consent" about the scope and impact a geographic TLD might have of their residents and organizations. This Informed Consent shall be demonstrated by certification of awareness of the 2012 geographic TLD experiences, and the possible utility of a TLD on the social and economic life of a geographic area.
      • This Informed Consent shall have been established through inclusive engagement of residents and organizations, including Internet stakeholders, from the applicant area.
      • The TLD application of an applicant for a geographic TLD shall indicate an ongoing process for residents, community-based organizations, academic institutions, faith-based groups, professional organizations, government, and the Internet community to engage in the TLD's governance processes at the local, national, and global levels.

      --- 

       

      2. The ALAC Advises the Board that the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) be modified to consider international treaties that address those rights of countries in relation with geographic names. A suggested change could read as follows (marked in bold):

      "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, taking into consideration that, according with the 2007 GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs, ICANN should avoid country, territory or place names, and country, territory or regional language or people descriptions, unless in agreement with the relevant governments or public authorities and in compliance with applicable international law treaties. 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.

       “Nevertheless, 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.”

       3. The ALAC further Advises the Board that a mechanism to protect underserved and underdeveloped interested parties be put in place as to address those cases in which the geographic name is shared by multiple parties in which one of the involved parties is least developed than the rest of the parties.


      :

       

  5. I certainly support the intent of the comments - including those from Tom Lowenhaupt.  But a couple of comments.

    The background document is dated August - a lot has happened since then.  Shouldn't we be updating this to accommodate any further events in LA - including a lot of discussion as part of the Hot Topics session on new GTLDs - and a call for review?

    Further, we are supporting the outcome of a GAC sub-working group.  Shouldn't we wait until the GAC has formally endorsed the statements of this group. (and if they don't it will put us in a most embarrassing position).

    1. Holly,

      Not having been in LA, and being distracted by the allocation process here in .nyc, I've not followed the developments on GAC and this sub group. So I'm unsure of the timing on submission. I leave that up to those more focused that I.

      But I'd like to point to some governance related aspects of city-TLDs.

      There are now about 35 cities that have or will have TLDs within the next several months. There are about 300 other cities globally with 1 million plus population. Many of these will be applying for TLDs in the coming years.

      In my dream world I see these cities with At-Large Structures having active memberships. And I imagine them communicating with one another about their interests and looking for participation in the Internet's governance processes.

      I believe we've more net-heads here than city-heads, so it might be helpful to note that city-heads project 75% of the globes population living in cities by 2050 (it's over 50% now - U.N. figures). And there's a growing "Interdependence" movement with cities claiming to be the "can-do" government sector. As cities and global entities expand their reach, the nation-state will be the loser. Or so the story goes.

      In any case, from a global Internet governance perspective, city-TLDs provide a grand opportunity to build legitimacy from the bottom.

      Best,

      Tom

      1. Hi Tom

        Couldn't agree more with you.

        I checked on the GAC communique - not much on new GTLS, but there was a lot of discussion in the 'Hot Topic' session on new gTLDs in LA with a lot of support for delaying the next round - even stopping the process, although someone pointed out that conracts were being signed, so in some respects the horse has bolted.  That said, there was a lot of support for at least slowing down the next round, at looking at the issues including the Aplicant Guidebook,  the lack of any succesful applicants from developing countries, enforcement of PICs - and yes, geographic names.  So your (and ALAC concerns) are shared.

        I am just asking whether we should be replying to a sub-group of the GAC, of maybe making a larger statement to the Board in light of the response to the Hot Topic discussion - and include in that the concerns about geographic names - really an issue of process, not substance.

  6. Holly,

    I'm participating on the GNSO's New TLD Discussion Group and have heard bits and pieces about the multiple efforts at ICANN to move toward re-opening the application window. The resources are certainly there for the registry/registrar and trademark interests to exert consistent pressure for a swift re-opening. If we're to resist that pressure dragging along all efforts for new TLDs, we need to press for multiple application channels.

    There seem to be (at least) three categories of new TLD applicants: trademarks (someone at the Discussion Group said the hallway talk was that there are several hundred to several thousand of those), generics, and geos.

    We might support the trademarks moving more swiftly and press for the geos to proceed when GAC and the At-Large have agreed on appropriate Informed Consent, geo-governance, PIC, and other issues.

    A single guide book puts enormous pressure to move forward. Good ideas will be discarded, challenged for hindering progress.

    Tom

     

  7. The draft document has two paragraphs that start with "The ALAC advises the Board....".

    This is a GAC WG draft and out comments should be addressed to the authors who have the ability to alter the document. The Board has nothing on their agenda resembling these issues, and so will not likely to be able to do anything with it at the moment, and will certainly wonder why we are forwarding this advice to them now.

    Shouldn't we aim out comments at the group that asked for input before resorting to advise the Board on an issue that might well be irrelevant by the time this issue reaches them?

     

  8. Alan,

    I agree. As this is going to GAC, how's this?

    Draft

    The ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) welcomes the call for comments by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) Sub-working group for protection of geographic names on the paper "The protection of names in the new gTLDs process V3 - August 29 2014"  and hereby submits the following comments:

    1. The ALAC supports the scope of the draft document and recommends that protection of geographic names must be addressed in next rounds of new gTLDs to avoid preventable conflict situations that have been observed during the current round.

    Additionally, we advocate a strengthening of the nexus between an application for a geographic TLD and the public interest of the geographic area for which a TLD is sought. The following are offered as steps to facilitate advancement of the public interest:

    • A compilation of experiences of the 2012 applicants for geographic TLDs should be made available to applicants for geographic TLDs.
    • This compilation should detail the impact the 2012 geographic TLDs had on their respective areas including, but not limited to, traditional and new businesses, civic organizations, government operations, religious and cultural groups. 
    • Geographic areas for which TLD applications are submitted should be required to demonstrate and certify their "Informed Consent" about the scope and impact a geographic TLD might have of their residents and organizations. This Informed Consent shall be demonstrated by certification of awareness of the 2012 geographic TLD experiences, and the possible utility of a TLD on the social and economic life of a geographic area.
    • This Informed Consent shall have been established through inclusive engagement of residents and organizations, including Internet stakeholders, from the applicant area.
    • The TLD application of an applicant for a geographic TLD shall indicate an ongoing process for residents, community-based organizations, academic institutions, faith-based groups, professional organizations, government, and the Internet community to engage in the TLD's governance processes at the local, national, and global levels.

    2. The ALAC also advises that the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) be modified to consider international treaties that address those rights of countries in relation with geographic names. A suggested change is marked in bold below:

    "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, taking into consideration that, according with the 2007 GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs, ICANN should avoid country, territory or place names, and country, territory or regional language or people descriptions, unless in agreement with the relevant governments or public authorities and in compliance with applicable international law treaties. 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."

     3. The ALAC further advises that a mechanism to protect underserved and underdeveloped interested parties be put in place as to address those cases in which the geographic name is shared by multiple parties in which one of the involved parties is least developed than the rest of the parties.

  9. Yes, much better.

    One last comment. I am having trouble understanding 3. In any case where there are multiple parties, presumably one of them is "least developed" compared to the other(s) even though the differences may not be significant. I suspect that is not what you are getting at, but rather when there is a great disparity among the parties. Perhaps this needs to be clarified.

  10. Thanks Tom - much better in terms of identifying what we are commenting on and to whom.  I agree with Alan - beter wording for No. 3.

  11. A very good improvement in this version.

  12. How's this for item 3.

    Current:

     3. The ALAC further advises that a mechanism to protect underserved and underdeveloped interested parties be put in place as to address those cases in which the geographic name is shared by multiple parties in which one of the involved parties is least developed than the rest of the parties.

    New:

    3. The ALAC urges the GAC to seek an equal footing for applicants from all  geographic areas: for example, that it advocate for a mechanism that will eliminate economic capacity as a deterrent to an under-served geographic area seeking to submit an application for a contested name.

  13. I discussed the statement with Leon and Thomas. Raf not available.

    We all have a problem with point number 3. If it is a commercial venture wanting to use a geographic name which is associated with multiple countries, the draft report already says the company must have the agreement of the countries. If it is the countries themselves that re planning to use the name, presumably they need to agree as well. So it is not clear what scenario point 3 is addressing.

    In the absence of understanding the rationale, we decided to delete that point and finalize the statement as in Thomas' post of Oct. 28,

    I have made one small change, specifically in point 2, I changed "advises" to "suggests" as this is more in keeping with the rest of the statement and the fact that this is a draft report that is still under development by a GAC sub-committee.

     

  14. A  great  document  and  the  team did a great  job on an important  issue  

  15. Agree with Glenn.

    One concern though: 

    • This compilation should detail the impact the 2012 geographic TLDs had on their respective areas including, but not limited to, traditional and new businesses, civic organizations, government operations, religious and cultural groups. 

    I'm having trouble understanding how religious groups can be related to and delimitated to Geo TLDs !!

     

    1. Louis,

      So far, here in New York City, I've not discerned any involvement by religious organizations with the .nyc TLD. But it being early in its development that's understandable.

      However, should that continue, it might be worth noting, e.g., "Many cities found little interest in their TLDs by religious organizations." If on the other hand there are major positive developments resulting from a religious use, that would be worth noting. As well, disputes about name recipients or usages would be worth noting.

      Best,

      Tom