GAC proposal to ban top level domains that use a geographic word unless permission granted from govt (next rounds of gtlds)

[Nicolas Adam]

Does the AGB permits the putting forth of competing proposals once an 
applicant puts forth its proposal for a string?

In short, can Argentina make a competing case for .patagonia once it 
knows that patagonia the clothing company once the string as a gTLD? If 
so, is it safe to assume that Argentina will win the competing process 
provided it has something more to do with the name than just park it? 
How does conflicts like this get settle again (and apologies for not 
remembering) and is this process not good enough?



On 03/10/2014 3:17 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> I think we should submit comments on this proposal from a GAC 
> Sub-group on Geographic Names in future gtld rounds to "respect 
> national sensitivities".
>
> In short, the GAC proposal calls for a change in the policy in the 
> applicant guidebook to require applicants to obtain the permission of 
> governments before they can use a word that could be considered a 
> country, territory or place name, and country, territory or regional 
> language or people descriptions.
>
> GAC wants to override the GNSO's policy from 2008 and the AGB.  GAC 
> relies heavily on the presumption that restricting gtlds in this 
> fashion is automatically in the public interest and therefore ICANN 
> must do it.  Of course it will have the effect of dramatically 
> restricting speech in tlds and further empowering governments over 
> people's use of the Internet.  Unfortunately the GACification of ICANN 
> continues apace.  Sigh.
>
> Robin
>
> https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee
>
>
>         *Draft document from GAC Sub-group on Geographic Names -
>         Community input sought*
>
> The GAC Sub-group on Geographic Names (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 this 
> document:
>
> The protection of geographic names in the new gTLDs process 
> <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Geo%20names%20in%20new%20gTLDs%20Updated%20%20V3%20%2029%20august%202014%5B4%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1411549935692&api=v2>.
>
> 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 at gac.icann.org 
> <mailto:future-geo-doc-comments at gac.icann.org> .
>
> Comments received will be posted on the Community Input page at: 
> http://tinyurl.com/nc4knhn.
>
> -----------------------
>
> *Paper's Conclusion:*
>
> *... Suggested changes in the Applicant Guide Book *
>
> Taking into consideration that the Durban Communiqué states that “The 
> GAC recommends that ICANN collaborate with the GAC in refining, for 
> future rounds, the Applicant Guidebook with regard to the protection 
> of terms with national, cultural, geographic and religious 
> significance, in accordance with the 2007 GAC Principles on New 
> gTLDs”, a new text is suggested regarding the geographic names, in the 
> case that the same text of the present AGB will be used as ground 
> document:
>
> To include in the paragraph 2.2.1.4 of the AGB the following sentence:
>
> “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”.
>
> Also the following paragraph appears in the section “2.2.1.4.2 
> Geographic Names Requiring Government Support” of the AGB. It should 
> be a general statement or principle regarding geographic names, in 
> order to clarify and reinforce the importance of the previous 
> communication between the Applicants and the Governments, even in case 
> of any doubt.
>
> “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.”
>
> A specific reference to the Geographic Names Repository described in 
> section 6.b of this document must be also included.
>
> The suggested changes in the Applicant Guide Book, paragraph 2.2.1.4 
> of the AGB should read as follows:
>
> “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. 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.”
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20141006/53b6217c/attachment.htm>