ALAC: Advice to the ICANN Board on Subsequent Procedures (R-11B)
| Date Issued | Reference ID | Current Phase |
|---|---|---|
| AL-ALAC-ST-0421-02-01-EN (R-11B) | Phase 2 | Understand |
Description:
We ask the ICANN Board to consider the public interest ramifications and serious potential consequences in allowing applications for Non-Capital City Name strings which do not clearly allude to and/or commit applicants to whether the TLD will be used primarily for purposes associated with that city name. We opine that stronger preventive protection for such strings is merited to prevent unintended consequences. Therefore, we reiterate our call for applications for strings which match the names of non-capital cities meeting specified criteria to be accompanied by letters of support/non-objection from relevant local governmental/public authorities irrespective of the applicant’s declared use of the TLD.
STATUS UPDATES
| Date | Phase | Type | Status Updates |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phase 2 | AP Feedback | The 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 2 | Clarifying Question | The 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 2 | Phase Change | Now Phase 2 |
| Phase 1 | Phase Update | Acknowledgment sent to ALAC |
