[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 08 August 2018

Julie Hedlund julie.hedlund at icann.org
Wed Aug 8 15:09:13 UTC 2018

Dear Work Track 5 members,


Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (08 August).  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 on the wiki. 


See also the attached the referenced slides, draft recommendations, and path to initial report.


Kind regards,


Julie Hedlund, Policy Director



Notes/Action Items:


Action Items:  


ACTION ITEM 1: Re: Recommendations on Country and Territory Names: Work Track 5 members should review the recommendations and indicate support or objections.

ACTION ITEM 2: Re: Non-AGB Terms: Work Track 5 members should continue to send concrete proposals to the list.




1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No SOI Updates


2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan:


Slide 5: Consensus Call Process

Slide 6: More on the Consensus Call Process



-- On slide 5 there is an internal contradiction -- strong support/significant opposition: not sure what that is.


Emily Barabas: Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it.

Steve Chan: There is a typo. It should be Strong Support BUT Strong Opposition.


-- Question: Will there be opportunity to comment before the document goes for public comments? Answer: In your deliberations you all will have plenty of opportunity to comment on the text.

-- This is part of the temperature taking of the WT5 members -- to know where we are at.  Consensus is not a vote.

-- Hope is to develop a draft of the initial report and have progress to show by the Barcelona meeting.


Work Track 5 -- Path to Initial Report:


-- Concerns about meeting the schedule; that it is too ambitious.

-- Schedule allows for time for public comments on the initial report and for the recommendations to be pulled into the full WG report.

-- This is a timeline and it may change.

-- WTs 1-4 also are under pressure, not just WT5, to complete their work.

-- This is in line with our announced plans, but is perhaps a bit more specific.

-- We are not under pressure of the other WTs, we are under our own pressure.


>From the chat:

Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: As said on list the workplan seems very ambitious, probably too ambitious in terms of timing. The GAC recalled in its Panama Communique that “several GAC members expressed concern that the timeline for this work should allow for the complexity and sensitivity of many of the issues.”

Kavouss Arasteh: Jorje +1

Thiago Jardim: +1 Jorge. These concerns were not just communicated in Panama, but also prior to that, in San Juan, and in between the two meetings, through GAC input to WT 5.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co Chair): This is well noted Jorge the whole PDP is working at ambitious time lines and WT5  is trying its best to integrate and allow for key discussions to occur if at all possible at ICANN63, we trust that will aid GAC not hibder it

Kavouss Arasteh: We do not want the pressure be put on WT5 while other wtS WTs be given more flexibility to complete their works afterward


3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names


Slide 9: Country and Territory Names and Initial Consensus Designations on Policy Recommendations:



-- The recommendations only pertain to country and territory names.

-- Question: Are we talking about other languages/scripts that are not listed -- how will we know unless we create finite lists?  Answer: We are trying to point to a finite list, such as the list of UN languages.

-- The UN language is a way because we know what they are, but other countries may have problems with that.  

-- Important procedural point: no factual basis for making the change (on languages) so keep as is in 2012 AGB.

-- UN languages is very limited.  Official languages exists only in certain jurisdictions.

-- In Switzerland we have 4 official languages, but we have many other languages that are very relevant to important communities.

-- Any strong objections to keeping "in any language" from the 2012 AGB?  [Several objections entered into the chat.]

-- UN official language has political background back to 1945.

-- Strong objections to "in any language" text.  Would be interested to know how it got in there.


>From the chat:

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): It would be really helpful if these slides would state, at the outset, if the draft recommendations diverge from the 2012 AGB and highlight how they do.

Carlos Gutierrez: General Comment on this consensus call on the Aug 8 draft document - #1. I miss the objective measuring consensus on a document that has no specific recommendation on the possible inclusion or MORE geographic name in any eventual subsequent rounds. For me, the draft for discussion BLOCKS any chance for geographic names to geo beyond the 2012 AGB. This is not more consensus call on the status quo. In my view it does NOT reflect the full discussions to date. Neither do the so called recommendations seem to be in the spirit of improving the 2012 AGB. My suggestion is to work around the final section of each recommendation and either make a positive WT5 recommendation out of it, or accept that there is no coherent recommendation from the WT5

Carlos Gutierrez: General Comment on this consensus call on the Aug 8 draft document - #2. As I have noted my written comments to the draft recommendations on the list, I want to restate my comment that the drafting style in which the present so called "recommendations" do not fully reflect neither the full range of the deliberations nor all the group input  as per the GNSO consensus call rules <quote> Draft recommendations "based on deliberations" and group input <unquote>, The only segment of each of the proposed recommendations that gets close to a real recommendation avoids taking responsibility  for the  substance of the recommendation, by suggestion to send the issue back to the community without any procedural consideration. This style of recommendations is foreign to the GNSO council past experience and sending the issue back to the “community” makes the whole effort to look rather void in my view. 

Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: As mentioned on list, regarding the draft recommendation 1: shouldn’t there be a mention that letter-character or character-character combinations confusingly similar with a 2 letter country code should be avoided? (I think I heard this during the discussions on the issue…)

Adrian Carballo: +1 to Jorge´s comments 

Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: question: what is the rationale for the limitation to official an UN languages?

Emily Barabas: @Kristina, the "hollow" bullets identify where there is divergence

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Emily:  Thanks, but I think it's helpful to state at the outset if there is divergence, especially because "consistent with" is not the same as "identical to."  Just trying to make sure there's no uncertainty later about whether everyone knew and understood how the recs differ from AGB 2012.

Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: "official language" may be very tricky, as there is no official determination in many countries - nevertheless the language may be widely used and/or relevant

Emily Barabas: Understood. Would it be helpful to do a redline of the AGB text itself?

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I defer to our GAC colleagues here, but I thought that identification of official language and scripts could be potentially contentious.

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Emily:  yes, very.  thank you!

Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: Please read my comments in the chat out: as long as there is no factual basis for the limitation in languages I would tend to object to that change v-a-v the 2012 AGB

Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: instead of "official" we could talk about "official and relevant languages"

Edmon: it is possible to develop a list that can be updated from time to time... yes... so "finite" doesnt mean a particular max number need to be identified

Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: why is it unworkable - what is the factual basis for saying that?

christopher wilkinson: I agree with Greg on finite lists of all appliccable and official langues and scriopts.

Ashley Heineman: Jorge - are you indicating that *all* languages need to be included?  

Kavouss Arasteh: Jorge +1

Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: all relevant languages for sure... 

Edmon: UN languages only may serve as a starting point... but probably should not be the upperbound

christopher wilkinson: +pt.

Ashley Heineman: Jorge, thanks for clarifying.  That is much more reasonable.  

Adrian Carballo: +1 to Jorge´s comments about languages

Dessalegn Yehuala: Correct there are no  UN official languages but there are UN working languages

Greg Shatan: I object to the “any language” standard.

Dessalegn Yehuala: Correct there are no  UN official languages but there are UN working languages

Greg Shatan: I object to the “any language” standard.

Edmon: relevant languages? (undersatnd that "relevant" is vague but might strike a balance at this level for now)

Susan Payne: I object too.  how is an applicant to know?  how many languages even are there? 

Alberto Soto: +1 Greg

Paul McGrady: Hi Susan, I saw somewhere that there are 6,500+ languages in the world.

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I also object to the "any language" standard.

Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: a country name is highly sensitive - that is why UN and "official" is not enough... "all languages" may not be necessary, but we need a middle ground there

Greg Shatan: You asked for fact-based arguments, not for prior historical occurrences.

Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: but Greg, we should learn from past experience and not resolve just theoretical problems - but I'm in if we look for a middle-ground

Kavouss Arasteh: If you want to retain reference to UN official language, we may preceede that by"including but not limited " to read including but not limited to UN official  language 

Ashley Heineman: I think it goes both ways Jorge.  Is their a proven need to include all languages spoken in a country?

Greg Shatan: I’m happy to look at past experiences as well, but that shouldn’t be used to shut off reasoned analysis.

Greg Shatan: Good question, Ashley. I look forward to @Jorge’s response.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co Chair): Perhaps take that last paragrapgh ou tto the list between now and our next call then...


Recommendation 1:



-- Question: In bullet 1, third line -- is it two letter-letter character?  Could character not be a letter? Answer: It is letter-letter combinations.  The word "character" might sound broad, but it is letter-letter (not other characters).  The quote from the 2012 AGB talks about two-character ascii strings -- only gTLDs had to be three or more characters.  This is a subset of the text from 2012.  That is why the term "character" is used as from the quote from the AGB.


>From the chat:

Dessalegn Yehuala: the WT5 is about goegraphic and territory names at the top level, and existing label generation rules prevent top level names having digits.

Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: I have repeatedly made a comment on letter-character combinations that might be similar to two-letter country codes - please consider it...

Steve Chan: @Jorge, you made a comment about ensuring that if letter-digit strings end up being recommended, that they are not confusingly similar to existing ccTLDs. At least in 2012, string similarity took into account all existing TLDs, including ccTLDs, so your concern would seem to be addressed?

Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: @Steve: that should be referred to at least in the draft recommendation so that it is transparent

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): For clarity, I suggest a slight revision to the recommendation, with suggested change in ALL CAPS:  "The Work Track recommends reserving AT THE TOP LEVEL all two-character . . . .

Heather Forrest: +1 to Kristina Rosette's drafting recommendation

Steve Chan: Just to reiterate and as Edmon and Alexander mentioned in the chat, digits were disallowed in 2012.


Recommendation 2:



-- Delete the final paragraph -- isn't that what the WT5 should be doing? ("The ICANN community may want to consider whether a future process shoudl be established...")  Should include at least a process outline.

-- The references to the 2007 policy is misleading.

-- This is a continuation of the GNSO policy recommendation process.

-- Agree with redrafting last paragraph.


>From the chat:

Edmon: on the sentence on "future process" perhaps we need to think about whether this working group can take on that "future process".. if so, then we can simply ether do so or add "this working group" in the last sentence of rec #2


4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms


Slide 11: Non-AGB Terms -- start discussion on the mailing list.


-- Apache helicopter is a great hypothetical.  Example of this sort of thing can be handled by national or local legislation.


5. AOB: New Telecom Provider


Slide 13: WT5 is Getting a New Telecom Provider:


-- Check carefully invites for the upcoming meeting.

-- The number will change and the interaction is different -- passcode is 4 digit, and you must record our name.

-- Adobe Connect is still available. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180808/6457c15b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WT5 meeting_6 August 2018_v2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 558926 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180808/6457c15b/WT5meeting_6August2018_v2-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Recommendations - country and territory names - 6 August 2018 v2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 248999 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180808/6457c15b/Recommendations-countryandterritorynames-6August2018v2-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Work Track 5 - Path to Initial Report 6 August 2018.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 70721 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180808/6457c15b/WorkTrack5-PathtoInitialReport6August2018-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180808/6457c15b/smime-0001.p7s>

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