Draft Applicant Guidebook V 3 Posted – Would Apple need permission from China for .MAC?!?
The much-anticipated Draft Application Guidebook is out!
ICANN has released Version 3. Lots of changes, some minor, some large. All worth reading if you’re a potential applicant or just interested in the promise of new TLDs.
The public comment period clock started October 4, and runs until November 22 of this year.
I am still digesting the many volumes of changes but caught this one for example in Module 2 at 2.1.1.4.1 (p. 14):
A string shall be considered to be a country or territory name if: (i) it is an alpha-3 code listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard
This means .GEO would have to get a letter of non-objection from the government of Georgia.
It also means that Apple would need a signature from the Chinese government or relevant authority in Macao to apply for .MAC.
An applied-for gTLD string that falls into any the above categories is considered to represent a geographical name. 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.
Congratulations, Apple!
[...] a first review, Jothan Frakes of Minds + Machines notes that Module 2 – 2.1.1.4.1 (p14), rule i alpha 3 codes from ISO 3166-1 could mean that Apple needs [...]
Actually, more than an hypotetical .MAC I wonder how the folks applying for the Welsh TLD are taking this: to get .CYM they will now have to ask the government of the Cayman Islands for permission! Makes no sense…
(BTW, will Verisign need to get retroactive permission from the Comoros to keep running .COM?)
It’s this ill thought out nonsense that may bring down the house of cards. Restricting strings like this engagaes Article 10 (our Conventional rights, similar to US Constitutional rights).
If ICANN can be said to be acting on the will of a public authority (and what is GAC if not that) then these restrictions can only be lawful if they fulfil strict criteria.
1.Is there a law setting this out?
2.Is this NECESSARY in a democratic society
3. Is it PROPORTIONATE (ie.is it a sledgehammer to crack a nut, when you consider the mischef to be address).
If you can’t answer all 3 to those, then any European Governments who sign up to this, are likely to acting unlawfully, and there could, potentially be a challenge in Strasbourg to it!!!
I’d imagine that there’s a reason that this is called a ‘draft’ still, and it obviously needs some tuning here and there.
Still, I am impressed with all of the work that ICANN has done to get this out, despite all of the roadblocks that opponents to new TLDs keep throwing in their way to distract them.
Notice also, in Jothan’s quote, that it doesn’t say that *if* you rely on the advice of a GAC representative, the evaluators will pass your application…
It’s the idea that Goverments can censor speech (i.e. choice of strings) which engages Art. 10.
If the Government doesn’t censor, but ICANN does, that is a different kettle of fish.