8. Use of geographic names [GAC Scorecard]

Scorecard:
Main page | Full scorecard | By rating | By subject -- see bottom of page.

Definition of geographic names
Item Rating GAC advice Board notes
8.1.1.1 1B

Implement a free of charge objection mechanism would allow governments to protect their interest.

ICANN will investigate a mechanism for the forthcoming round under which GAC members could be exempted from paying fees for objections in some circumstances (subject to constraints imposed by budget and other considerations).

Board comments made on this point

Chair summary (2 Mar 11)
8.1.1.2 2

and to define names that are to be considered geographic names.

The process relies on pre-existing lists of geographic names for determining which strings require the support or non-objection of a government.

Governments and other representatives of communities will continue to be able to utilize the community objection process to address attempted misappropriation of community labels.

ICANN will continue to explore the possibility of pre-identifying using additional authoritative lists of geographic identifiers that are published by recognized global organizations.

Board comments made on this point

Chair summary (2 Mar 11)
8.1.2 1B

This implies that ICANN will exclude an applied for string from entering the new gTLD process when the government formally states that this string is considered to be a name for which this country is commonly known as.

ICANN will continue to rely on pre-existing lists of geographic names for determining which strings require the support or non-objection of a government.

This is in the interest of providing a transparent and predictable process for all parties. (See related note above (8.1.1.2).)

Board comments made on this point

Chair summary (2 Mar 11)
8.1.3 2

Review the proposal in the DAG in order to ensure that this potential [city name applicants avoiding government support requirement by stating that use is for non-community purposes] does not arise.

Provide further explanations on statements that applicants are required to provide a description/purpose for the TLD, and to adhere to the terms and condition of submitting an application including confirming that all statements and representations contained in the application are true and accurate.

There are post-delegation mechanisms to address this situation. In addition, the "early warning" opportunity will offer an additional means to indicate community objections.

Board comments made on this point

Chair summary (2 Mar 11)
8.1.4 1B

The GAC reiterates its position that governments should not be required to pay a fee for raising objections to new gTLD applications.

It is the view of the ICANN Board that governments that file objections should be required to cover costs of the objection process just like any other objector.

The problem could be solved, if a free objection mechanism would allow governments to protect their interest.

ICANN will investigate a mechanism for the forthcoming round under which GAC members could be exempted from paying fees for objections in some circumstances (subject to constraints imposed by budget and other considerations).

Board comments made on this point

Chair summary (2 Mar 11)
Further requirements regarding geographic names
Item Rating GAC advice Board notes
8.2.1 1A

The GAC clarifies that it is a question of national sovereignty to decide which level of government or which administration is responsible for the filing of letters of support or non-objection.

There may be countries that require that such documentation has to be filed by the central government - also for regional geoTLDs; in other countries the responsibility for filing letters of support may rest with sub-national level administrations even if the name of the capital is concerned.

GAC requests some clarification on this in the next version of the Applicants Guidebook.

This principle is agreed, and this can be clarified in the Guidebook. ICANN invites governments to identify appropriate points of contact on this issue.

Board comments made on this point

Chair summary (2 Mar 11)
8.2.2 1B

According to the current DAG, applications will be suspended (pending resolution by the applicants), if there is more than one application for a string representing a certain geographic name, and the applications have requisite government approvals.

The GAC understands such a position for applications that have support of different administrations or governmental entities.

In such circumstances it is not considered appropriate for ICANN to determine the most relevant governmental entity; the same applies, if one string represents different geographic regions or cities.

Some governments, however, may prefer not to select amongst applicants and support every application that fulfils certain requirements. Such a policy may facilitate decisions in some administrations and avoid time-consuming calls for tenders.

GAC encourages ICANN to process those applications as other competing applications that apply for the same string.

ICANN will continue to suspend processing of applications with inconsistent/conflicting support, but will allow multiple applicants all endorsed by the same authority to go forward, when requested by the government.

This area needs further discussion on the potential situations that could lead to redelegation requests.

Board comments made on this point

Chair summary (2 Mar 11)

Broken down by subject:
1. The objection procedures including the requirements for governments to pay fees | 2. Procedures for the review of sensitive strings | 3. Root Zone Scaling | 4. Market and Economic Impacts | 5. Registry – Registrar Separation | 6. Protection of Rights Owners and consumer protection issue | 7. Post-Delegation Disputes | 8. Use of geographic names | 9. Legal Recourse for Applications | 10. Providing opportunities for all stakeholders including those from developing countries | 11. Law enforcement due diligence recommendations | 12. The need for an early warning to applicants whether a proposed string would be considered controversial or to raise sensitivities (including geographical names)