120 likes | 128 Views
Explore provisions, risks, and implications of using geographical names in the latest Guidebook for new gTLD programs. Learn about sovereignty concerns and objection mechanisms.
E N D
Geographical names in relation to the new gTLD program Jonathan Shea HKIRC 1 November 2010
Agenda • Provisions related to geographical names in the latest “Guidebook” • Risks for sovereignty • Any other risks? 2
Provisions related to geographical names in the latest “Guidebook” • Country or territory names on the ISO 3166-1 list, their translations in any language, abbreviations, permutations, and transpositions, are not available. • E.g. HK, HKG, HongKong, HKSAR (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region), Hong-Kong, KongHong, are not available. 3
Provisions related to geographical names in the latest “Guidebook” (Cont’d) ISO-3166-1 4
Provisions related to geographical names in the latest “Guidebook” (Cont’d) ISO-3166-1 5
Provisions related to geographical names in the latest “Guidebook” (Cont’d) Application for other geographical names must be accompanied by document(s) of support or non-objection from relevant governments or public authorities. E.g. Capital names: Beijing; city names: Chongqing; sub-national names: Guangdong; continent or UN region: North America, Oceania; 6
Provisions related to geographical names in the latest “Guidebook” (Cont’d) E.g. names on ISO-3166-2(under DE) 7
Provisions related to geographical names in the latest “Guidebook” (Cont’d) “Geographic names protection for ISO 3166-2 names should not be expanded to include translations.”(25 Sep 2010 ICANN Board resolutions) E.g. 馬德里 as the Chinese translation of “Madrid” They are to be protected through community objection process. 8
Risks for sovereignty • Announcement of Application • How will ICANN handle the announcement? Public Comment? • How much time does one have for filing an objection? • Objection mechanism • Cost to be incurred • Cost-recovery and loser-pays basis 9
Risks for sovereignty (Cont’d) • City / sub-regional names • “City names present challenges because city names may also be generic terms or brand names, and in many cases no city name is unique.” (Draft Guidebook ver. 4) • E.g. “Admiralty” in Hong Kong is not likely to be protected. • E.g. “Berlin” which is on the ISO 3166-2 list but not unique as a city name. Also “Kent” as a county name. 10
Any other risks? • Any other risk from the ccTLD community perspective? 11
THANK YOU!! 12