Posted by:  /  Tags: , , , , ,





What protections are provided for city names that are in a contention set because they are confusingly similar with another applied for TLD?

There is no priority given to an application for a city name with documentation of support or non-objection of an application for a generic or brand name with the same name, if both are submitted as standard applications. However, the ‘community’ designation for applications was developed to view such applications more favorably if the applicant can prove, through the community priority evaluation procedure, that it represents a defined community. Applicants intending to use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name may apply as a ‘community’ application, understanding that additional criteria apply.

In responding to the example provided, that .pari or .belin could easily drag a .paris or berlin application into a contention set with a subsequent auction, and could become a target for blackmail. The application process has been developed to provide a number of safeguards to reduce the risk for gaming, and hopefully blackmail, as suggested in the example above. In addition to resolution through the contention set, which will be discussed below, there are other avenues also available to governments, such as:

  • Governments may provide a notification using a notification procedure that will be defined or the public comment forum to communicate concerns relating to national laws. However, a government’s notification of concern will not in itself be deemed to be a formal objection. A notification by a government does not constitute grounds for rejection of a gTLD application.
  • Governments may also communicate directly to applicants using the contact information posted in the application, e.g. to send a notification that an appliedfor gTLD string might be contrary to a national law, and to try to address any concerns with the applicants.
  • A formal objection could be made through the Community Objection process. Established institutions with clearly delineated communities are eligible to file a community objection. The community named by the objector must be a community strongly associated with the applied-for gTLD string in the application that is the subject of the objection. The criteria for resolving the objection are provided in the Guidebook. ICANN does not wish to comment on the outcome of a speculative dispute.
  • If the objection to .pari is not successful, this does not mean that .pari would prevail over .paris in a community priority evaluation procedure used for resolving string contention sets. However, as above, ICANN does not wish to comment on the outcome of such a dispute.






  • 政府(地方自治体)は、今後定義される「公告プロセス」を通じ公告するか、あるいはパブリックコメントにて日本の法律と関係付けた形で懸念を表明することができます。しかし、政府(地方自治体)の懸念についての表明が即ち正式な異議申立となるわけではありません。政府による公告が、gTLDの申請を却下する根拠にはなりません。
  • 政府(地方自治体)は、公開された申請者情報の連絡先を通して、直接申請者と連絡をとることが可能です。例)申請された文字列が日本国の法律に抵触している旨を通知し、申請者との間での問題解決に取り組む。
  • 正式な異議申立は、コミュニティに関する異議申立プロセスを通じて行うことができます。明確に線引きされたコミュニティとして確立された団体は、コミュニティ異議を申立てる資格があります。異議申立人のコミュニティ名は、被申立申請者が申請したgTLD文字列に強く関連づけられている必要があります。異議申立の判断基準については申請ガイドブックに記載されています。ICANNは、想定される紛争の結果についてコメントすること控えさせて頂きたいと思います。
  • もし、.pariに対する異議申立が失敗した場合でも、.pariが.parisに対して、コンテンションセットを解決するために設けられている「コミュニティ優先評価」にて勝訴するということではありません。しかし、上記に記載している通り、ICANNは、想定される紛争の結果についてコメントすること控えさせて頂きたいと思います。





Leave a Reply

Your Name: (required)

Your Email: (will not be published) (required)

Your Website:

Your Message:

submit comment