[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 22 August 2018 at 20.00 UTC

[Greg Shatan]

While I hate the game of participants identifying areas of agreement
(rather than the co-chairs doing it), I’ll play anyway.  We probably have
some level of rough consensus on continuing the current treatment of (long
and short-form) country names, 2-letter codes and two character
letter-letter strings, and continuing to allow three-letter TLDs.  I don’t
see consensus beyond that.  Not on the treatment of ISO 3166-1 3 letter
codes (reserved indefinitely? available? if so, to whom? Govs only? Anyone
with gov support? What about non-geo uses, like .QAT?) (I hope this WT does
not drive me to chewing qat....). As Alexander notes, we don’t have it on
non-capital cities.  And we glossed over capital cities, so I’m not sure we
can even say we have considered consensus on that point.

I look forward to our Co-Chairs' evaluation of levels of agreement in the
group.

Greg


On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:09 AM Alexander Schubert
<alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:

> Jorge,
>
>
>
> I think that both cities and non-AGB strings are the top issues at hand.
> Seemingly the Alpha-3 codes and country names are being banned already –
> that would have been the 3rd silo. Everything else seems to be quite
> self-evident and agreed on.
>
> This probably means that non-AGB terms and city-names are the last two big
> silos we need to find agreement on. And I forecast that the vast majority
> of geo-applications will target CITIES. But nonetheless: non-AGB strings
> are in dire need to be discussed!
>
>
>
> In the past seemingly the discussion on different silos overlapped – and
> merged. So we should make sure to keep non-AGB string issues (and its
> discussion) separated from the city-name string discussion. That’s why we
> have silos in the first place.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> *Sent:* Dienstag, 21. August 2018 15:48
> *To:* annebeth.lange at norid.no; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Cc:* gnso-secs at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 22
> August 2018 at 20.00 UTC
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *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
> 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/20180822/493d8ed2/attachment.html>