[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 22 August 2018 at 20.00 UTC
javrua at gmail.com
Tue Aug 21 13:08:17 UTC 2018
Thanks for these suggestions. Gracias.
PS: I apologize to all as I won’t be able to make this call.
> On Aug 21, 2018, at 8:47 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
> Dear Annebeth and all
> I wonder how the co-leads intend to structure the discussion around “non-AGB terms”.
> If I may, I would suggest that we approach the issue step-by-step:
> 1. Consider if data from the 2012 AGB round indicates whether there were issues with strings with geographic significance
> 2. Consider what kind of issues were identified, eg lack of awareness, lack of communication, lack of understanding, competing interests…
> 3. Consider whether those issues merit being addressed
> 4. consider what means are at our disposal in the policy tool-box to address such issues
> 5. discuss on which policy tools may have enough traction
> I feel that I have already made my substantial points clear, but here they go again in a summarized fashion (following the sequence summarized above):
> 1. Yes, I feel there were important issues with non-AGB terms, which have resulted in conflicts between applicants and authorities;
> 2. Probably there was a bit of all kind of issues in differing degrees in the various cases we have heard of;
> 3. Yes, as the process and also the legitimacy of the TLD expansion would benefit from an agreed approach that takes all legitimate interests on board;
> 4. I have mentioned a few, but here they go again:
> - We need a framework governing terms not fitting in any new specific category but still having such a “geographic significance”.
> - Both applicants and interested parties with claims 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.
> - Elements of such a framework could be:
> · a diligent search requirement for applicants – which could be linked to a “Geonames Advisory Panel” and/or internationally available lists of geographic terms and/or a voluntary repository/database of such terms;
> · a contact obligation for applicants;
> · incentives to reach an amicable solution, such as a prima facie non-objection requirement. The non-objection letter could be subject to deadlines, and to an implied non-objection if the corresponding authority does not respond within the deadline;
> · a fair, quick, cheap and independent mediation and/or dispute resolution mechanism in case there are disagreements between applicant and relevant authority.
> I hope this may be helpful…
> Best regards
> Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> Im Auftrag von Annebeth Lange
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 08:40
> An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org
> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 22 August 2018 at 20.00 UTC
> Dear Work Track 5 members,
> Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming Work Track 5 call on Wednesday 22nd August 2018 at 20.00 UTC:
> 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates
> 2. Status of Draft Recommendations on 2-Letter ASCII Strings and Country and Territory Names
> 3. Non-AGB Terms
> 4. AOB
> We refer to the email sent out by Emily yesterday, Monday 20th August, with Draft Recommendations.
> If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs at icann.org as far in advance as possible.
> Kind regards
> WT5 Co-leads
> Javier Rua
> Olga Cavalli
> Martin Sutton
> Annebeth Lange
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5