[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 04 April 2018

Carlos Dionisio Aguirre carlossssss69 at gmail.com
Wed Apr 18 20:02:11 UTC 2018


please Staff, could you send me the credentials to enter call by webex.
thanks

Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
ALAC LACRALO liaison

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
wrote:

> Dear Work Track 5 members,
>
>
>
> Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (04
> April).  *These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate
> through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording,
> transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: *
> https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-02-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+
> Procedures+PDP+Work+Track+5.
>
>
>
> See also the attached slides.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Notes/Action Items:*
>
>
>
> *Action Items:*  Include the input from the notes and chat in the
> spreadsheet and review for the next meeting.
>
>
>
> *Notes:*
>
>
>
> 1. SOI Updates: No updates.
>
>
>
> 2. Update from ICANN61 / Where we are now:
>
>
>
> Slide 4: Update from ICANN61:
>
> -- WT5 held a public session at ICANN61
>
> -- Provided a brief background and summary of progress
>
> -- Presented the timeline the group is working towards to deliver an
> Initial Report in July
>
> -- Discussed future treatment of geographic terms contained within the
> 2012 Applicant Guidebook (AGB).
>
> -- Slides, transcript and video stream can be accessed via the ICANN61
> Meeting Schedule page - https://61.schedule.icann.org/meetings/647704
>
> -- Feedback from the session has been incorporated into the working
> document for the Work Track: - https://docs.google.com/
> spreadsheets/d/1FuPEq0y-cdSUQ1nvhWKhVnG8PLaC2RYXsCpQu9
> 1FDqo/edit#gid=358523414
>
> -- Some members raised concerns about the format of the spreadsheet used
> to track deliberations. Suggestions for alternatives are welcome.
>
>
>
> Slide 5: Work Track 5 Work Plan:
>
> -- March-April: Begin Discussing Future Treatment of Terms in 2012
> Applicant Guidebook.
>
> -- May: Discuss Future Treatment of Terms Not Included in 2012 Applicant
> Guidebook.
>
> -- June: Draft initial report.
>
> -- July: Publish Initial Report -- Not an end point, but a required step
> in the PDP to publish in the public forum.  Initial focus is to reach this
> initial report stage in July.
>
>
>
> Slide 6: Where are we now?
>
> Drawing on the conversation during the ICANN61 session, the Work Track
> co-leaders submit the following proposals for consideration:
>
> -- 2-character country codes (ISO 3166): Maintain the status quo,
> reserving all 2 letter-letter ASCII combinations for existing and future
> country codes.
>
> -- 3-character country codes (ISO 3166): Maintain the status quo, i.e. not
> available, and defer broader questions about which entity/entities
> can apply for these strings and how they may be treated (for instance, as a
> gTLD, a ccTLD or something else).
>
> -- Long and short form of country and territory names (ISO 3166): Maintain
> the status quo, i.e. not available, and defer broader questions about which
> entity/entities can apply for these strings and how they may be treated
> (for instance, as a gTLD, a ccTLD or something else).
>
>
>
> Discussion:
>
> -- Gathering all input in a spreadsheet, but could consider converting it
> into a Word document.
>
> -- Separate item: The letter-number combination is not a geographic name
> and will be taken by Work Track 2; the actual two-character country codes
> would be reserved (letter-letter country code).
>
> -- The discussion centered on the point that a letter-number combination
> would not be referring to a geographic term so it would be out of scope of
> this Work Track.  It would be considered by Work Track 2.
>
> -- When we defined the scope of Work Track 5 we explicitly included
> 3-character country codes, so how can we pass this on – what do we mean by
> “defer broader questions about which entity/entities can apply”?  At
> ICANN61 whereby it was thought that this should sit outside of gTLD-land
> (outside of GNSO).  That is where we find difficulties in routing anything
> further.  We said we would not look at anything that is outside of the
> scope for the GNSO.  Comments were to keep these as unavailable and to
> defer broader questions outside the GNSO scope.  Important to note that
> even if some countries did not want this as a gTLD, and it is not a ccTLD,
> and Work Track 5 can only look at what is a gTLD or not.  So the only
> solution is either we give support or non-objection, it would still be a
> gTLD, which would not be satisfactory for the participants who commented at
> ICANN61.
>
>
>
> 3. Geographic terms from the AGB (continued):
>
>
>
> Slide 8: Review of Existing Country and Territory Names:
>
> As a reminder, in the 2012 Application Guidebook, the following country
> and territory names were not available (see section 2.2.1.4.1):
>
>    1. it is an alpha-3 code listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard.
>    **discussed at ICANN61**
>    2. it is a long-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a
>    translation of the long-form name in any language. **discussed at ICANN61**
>    3. it is a short-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a
>    translation of the short-form name in any language. **discussed at ICANN61
>    **
>    4. it is the short- or long-form name association with a code that has
>    been designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance
>    Agency.
>    5. it is a separable component of a country name designated on the
>    “Separable Country Names List,” or is a translation of a name appearing on
>    the list, in any language. See the Annex at the end of this module.
>    6. it is a permutation or transposition of any of the names included
>    in items (i) through (v). Permutations include removal of spaces, insertion
>    of punctuation, and addition or removal of grammatical articles like “the.”
>    A transposition is considered a change in the sequence of the long or
>    short–form name, for example, “RepublicCzech” or “IslandsCayman.”
>    7. it is a name by which a country is commonly known, as demonstrated
>    by evidence that the country is recognized by that name by an
>    intergovernmental or treaty organization.
>
>
>
> Slide 9: Future Treatment – Country and Territory Names:
>
> We are now discussing future treatment of the following country and
> territory names:
>
>    - it is the short- or long-form name association with a code that has
>    been designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance
>    Agency. (example: .eu)
>    - it is a separable component of a country name designated on the
>    “Separable Country Names List,” or is a translation of a name appearing on
>    the list, in any language. See the Annex at the end of this module.
>    (example: Åland, separable component of Åland Islands)
>    - it is a permutation or transposition of any of the names included in
>    items (i) through (v). Permutations include removal of spaces, insertion of
>    punctuation, and addition or removal of grammatical articles like “the.” A
>    transposition is considered a change in the sequence of the long or
>    short–form name, for example, “RepublicCzech” or “IslandsCayman.” (note:
>    transposition does not apply to 3-letter codes)
>    - it is a name by which a country is commonly known, as demonstrated
>    by evidence that the country is recognized by that name by an
>    intergovernmental or treaty organization. (Holland for the Netherlands)
>
>
>
> Discussion:
>
> -- What do we mean by “name of the country” – do we mean in English?
> Answer: There are some language aspects included in the terms.  Bullet 2 –
> “is a translation of a name appearing on the list...”  Check in the AGB to
> see which items have a translation?  ISO 3166 names it comes in two forms –
> English translation or French translation of the names.  That is the
> language being used. Often they are actually transliterated.  For the
> permutations language isn’t mentioned.  What has been discussed is the
> possibility of having all languages.
>
> -- When we’ve talked about permutations: it is strangely written –
> transposition doesn’t apply to 3-letter codes, but doesn’t mention
> permutations.  Perhaps still consider whether to have the permutations
> unavailable, or to have an objection process.  There were a number of
> conversations in the spreadsheet on the relevance on the reserved status.
>
> -- Shortcomings on translations or specific terms should be covered on the
> spreadsheet in those items that are not covered in the applicant guidebook.
>
> -- On the last bullet – “name by which a country is commonly known...”
> ADD: “in any language”.  But, how would we manage that?  It could not be a
> definitive list. Start with any official language in the country or
> geography concerned by the relevant string.  Depending on requests for
> expanding, you could go to UN languages, but this might be too little.  Not
> fair to say all strings to be treated fairly in all languages.  Where the
> AGB is not explicit we should take that over to the list of what isn’t in
> the guidebook.  If we are saying these are reserved then it would be ideal
> to have a definitive list, but that may not be possible. “In any language”
> could be tens of thousands of strings reserved.  Need to compile a rough
> list of what this could look like. A start could be recognizing the
> official language in the jurisdiction of the string concerned.  Should we
> say, “all scripts” instead of “all languages”?  Noting this for the list of
> what is not considered in the AGB.
>
>
>
> Re: it is the short- or long-form name association with a code that has
> been designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance
> Agency. (example: .eu) – does it fit into the same way forward?
>
> -- “Exceptionally reserved” there are no definitions of this in the
> standard.  Probably shouldn’t include in a new version of the AGB.   The
> whole standard is in a review period and it might be that the whole notion
> of reserved names will change.  If you are doing a new AGB consider taking
> this whole notion of reserved and exceptionally reserved out of the AGB.
> Using undefined terms is not a good idea.
>
> -- Just accept the international standard as it is, but without including
> the notion of reserved and exceptionally reserved.  But there are many
> geographicals that are not included in ISO 3166 at all.  Bias toward a
> certain category of subdivisions and ignoring others.  But, there could be
> other terms that protect, or they have an objection process.
>
>
>
> 4. Next Meeting: Wednesday, 18 April at 20:00 UTC.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180418/b2b56d00/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list