GAC WG Protection of Geographic Names Proposed draft Best practices for future rounds of new gTLDs ICANN 58 – Copenhaguen This is blank for full frame pix or graphs.

Proposed draft Best practices for future rounds of new gTLDs Objectives Certain terms with geographic significance, may always fall out of any list or defined category. Inspiration in drafting the rules for possible new categories of terms with “geographic significance”. Inspiration for establishing a framework governing terms not fitting in any new specific category to be established but still having such a “geographic significance”, having a relevance for a community of the real world related to such geo-name. Both applicants and interested parties linked to such geographic significance terms would benefit from a more predictable framework of rules, and, therefore, the need for last-minute interventions would be minimized.

Proposed Best Practices – Draft for revision Default rule principle: would apply on a default basis, whenever there is no specific rules-framework governing a concrete type/category of new gTLDs. Due diligence search obligation: fulfilled if the repository of terms has been consulted. Effective public consultation requirement: in order to give all the opportunity to raise any concerns about any such strings. Contact obligation: for the applicant in case of a match. No objection requirement: from government / authority / community, subject to the possibility of a dispute resolution. Dispute resolution in cases that a non-objection is not obtained: applicant may bring his case before the independent review panel or a specific, neutral and independent panel. Documentation obligation: the former steps and requirements shall be documented and be subject to control by ICANN.

Repository of terms with geographic significance Draft for revision: Repository of terms with geographic significance To be maintained by ICANN, compiling relevant lists of terms and discrete terms with geographic significance. Governments, public authorities and interested communities would be eligible to request the addition of such lists and/or terms to the repository. Include the terms, the identification and contact details of the corresponding Governments, public authorities and interested communities, and a brief justification of the geographic significance of the terms included. Proposals for addition to the repository would need to be supported by a reasonable explanation. The initial sources feeding this repository would be established in a community wide discussion process.

Comments received - Concerns Any given string may have multiple legitimate uses and meanings Ex-post solutions are always preferential Suggests that there is a de facto legal right to certain terms Harm to free speech and legitimate commerce Impractical and overly burdensome to applicants Some governments will be unaware of this database’s existence GAC should not develop its own rules isolated from the rest of the community Immense project requiring considerable administrative resources No established legal basis or widely-accepted norm that would ensure predictability for new gTLD applicants Unclear legal status of such repository Compensated by coordination with corresponding UN agencies Concerned about the practicalities of developing a repository of names or acronyms with ‘geographical significance’

Comments received – In favor Important to avoid future complexities and litigation Repository based on the existing reliable resources and gradually be further filled-in on concrete standardized parameters so that it may be considered as one of most authentic and useful resources All the existing resources including U.N can be reviewed and used through discussions, analysis and detailed homework , we can define the desired criteria The first fully open new gTLD application round has revealed deficiency in the guidance for applicants which are or possibly geographic terms: 4 years and still struggling to solve all the issues that were not sufficiently considered at launching phase Work based on the experience of the past and trying to limit the damages. Develop some high level principles that represent a common ground within the GAC, with a view to making a timely input into the community processes The notion of a repository is good, as long as it promotes an inclusive participation The repository provides the applicant with a “bona fide” protection and sufficient guarantee to proceed Promote coordination with a United Nations agency, for example WIPO

Input to the cross community dialogue This proposal could be considered as a high level GAC input to the community process (specially PDP WG Subsequent procedures and Cross Community Dialogue Dialogue). Based on this proposal, WG could suggest ideas to the community, that could be considered among other alternatives, like: Early contact between parties Consultations Possible use of different instruments (repository, others?) New ways to handle objections Creation of specialized pannels Public interest should be considered.

Next steps There could be value in having common general accepted principles within the GAC, as a middle ground proposal. WG can work on developing these principles towards ICANN 59 meeting in Johannesburg WG to further consider the Swiss and other proposals in advance of next ICANN 59 meeting in Johannesburg