[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 17 January 2017

[Emily Barabas]

Dear Work Track 5 members,

 

Please see below the notes from the meeting today.  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 or transcript. See the transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/eh1yB

 

Kind regards,

Emily

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACTION ITEM 1: Plan a webinar (or two, to account for time zone concerns) on history of the issue in the next few weeks.

ACTION ITEM 2: Add affiliation information to the Google Doc on definition of geographic names.

ACTION ITEM 3: Develop a more concise summary of comments received on the definition of geographic names.

ACTION ITEM 4: Consider developing a matrix version of the geographic names criteria in the 2012 AGB.

Notes:

1.  Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates

- No Updates

2.  Agree on ToR (see attached) 

- Need to get agreement on the draft circulated to the list. There have not been comments on the list since circulation.

- Can still be circulated to community for their input but need general agreement on draft as WT5.

Jeff Neuman: To clarify, as the Working Group, we are the ones to approve the Terms of Reference. We can ask for comments, but at end of day we approve the ToR

- This version is the final version, unless there are objections by WT5 members. 

- Sharing WT5 Terms of reference is courtesy, nut their approval and agreement is not required to be able to move to substantive discussions.

- Terms of draft are approved, absent strong objections.

3.  Path to the 2012 AGB (History Lesson)

- Non-exhaustive list of background information shared with list

- Reviewing slides 6 and 7

- Is one of the goals to close the gap between the GNSO policy and 2012 AGB? Or is it also about rectifying issues identified?

- It apears that it should be both.

Jeff Neuman: The gap is the differential between the 2007 GNSO Policy vs what was implemented in 2012

- Did the Reserved Names WG develop the AGB? No, their recommendations were integrated into the GNSO's policy recommendations. Those recommendations were then implemented in the AGB.

Robin Gross: Worth pointing out that the GNSO's "principle G" (which was approved by the GNSO and ICANN board) setting forth the new gtld program stated" The string evaluation process must not infringe the applicant's freedom of expression rights that are protected under internationally recognized principles of law".

Robin Gross: So this principle is still the approved policy

- Support for a more detailed webinar on the history of geographic names. 

Jeff Neuman: We have heard the call for a webinar and will try to arrange for that in the next few weeks

Emily Barabas: List of background resources: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JnqiUKHd9_aTLFMFQ0Rmft8GRUL7JSvGF7qS2xj7CAw/edit[docs.google.com]

- Series of issues during the implementation of policy (AGB), Board - GAC discussions, issues during process. Not just a single gap.

- List of background materials already distributed, but can be sent again.

4.  Definition of a Geographical Name (2012 AGB)

- Reviewing slides 9-10

- Issues in the 2012 round - some strings that some felt were geographic names that were not in specified lists.

- Does the definition of a geographic name need to be adjusted?

Susan Payne GNSO/IPC: Definitions are very important.  We do need to be clear as we define, however, that not all geo names will necessarily be treated in the same way.  This was also the case under the AGB (although as a number of people have commented it woul benefit from better and clearer drafting)

5.  Definition of a Geographical Names: What needs to change? (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ooKmb576MQJvpHyDYOlJE3M2-Ssnv-SSgVfroT3D7Fc/edit#gid=0)[docs.google.com]

-  Reviewing summary of input received

- Commenters wish for more clarity in the criteria

- Comments received about the consultation process, especially about names not on lists.

Liz Williams: @Olga...you are making an assumption that national and regional governments are the "pre-approvers" of any application.  I think that notion needs further examination...so that we can avoid the problems of 2012 and previously...

Sara Bockey: Agree with Susan and Liz.  In an effort to avoid conflicts, I would like the following be considered:  a geographic name is a term/string that is associated with a geographic area and cannot be reasonably confused with any other geographic area or term.

- Is the purpose of this call to define geographic names? Or try to fix problems that have not yet been identified?

- Reviewing input received in Google document, does not necessarily indicate that changes are going to be made.

Paul McGrady: @Jeff, understood, but don't we need at least a strawman definition in order to evaulate these comments?

Jeff Neuman: Paul - That was in the email as well.  The strawman is the definition that was in the Guidebook

Alexander Schubert: Obviously WIKIPEDIA is NOT authoritive - but ALL of the 2012 round cases like .bar, .amazon or .tata would have been EASILY identified as geographic name if the applicant had just consulted WIKIPEDIA. So maybe a mandatory consultation of WIKIPEDIA  (additionally to the requirement to check other lists) for ALL applicants would make sense

Susan Payne GNSO/IPC: I think the confusion is that the section in the guidebook isn't merely a definition, it also addresses how different types of names are treated - and the comments are focussed on treatment and not definition

- There seems to be some confusion as there is definitions and usage and they both need to be considered.

Jeff Neuman: @Greg - if I can reword what I think you are saying.....it may help to come up with a definition of a geographic name without also including the implication or impact of something being defined as such?

Liz Williams: @Greg...and this is the purpose of the schematic I was suggesting...to provide us with a sheet of what happened and then whether we can mitigate a problem or encourage further applications from small communities of 50K in a province of Morocco...

Greg Shatan: @Jeff, that’s the opposite of what I’ve said.

Greg Shatan: Jeff, what I said was that we can’t consider the concept of a definition without understanding the effect(s) of the definition(s).

- Should be concentrating on the definition again, rather than zeroing in on the effects on spefic communities.

- The summary of comments may need to be distilled into something more streamlined.

- Decide what is a geographical name, then decide how they should be treated. It can be an iterative approach.

- Proposed: move forward in an iterative process. 1) review and revise definition of geo names 2) consider treatment 3) consider exceptions

Heather Forrest: It seems to me that we need a clearer methodology or structure for these discussions, or we risk getting lost in side-issues and losing sight of the ultimate task,  the end result of which is a definition of names to receive particular treatment, and what that treatment is. Before we start discussing the treatment, we should be thinking about what names qualify

- Even if there is a wide definition, that should not presume that they will all receive the same treatment.

Jeff Neuman: The ultimate goal (I think) is to provide guidance to applicants when they ask themselves "Am I applying for a geographic name"?  Then we do the next step.  If the answer is yes, then......

Heather Forrest: Perhaps we should be framing this discussion as: What names (if any) deserve/require different treatment?

Susan Payne GNSO/IPC: Would it be helpfulto break out the original definition into a chart so easier to read rather than the current text.  for example headings would be type of name, then included in that you would have country and territory name, then a column of how that is currently defined (ie by reference tothe lists) and then,if you like, also acolumn for how currently treated.and so on?

- Should all two-character strings (e.g., letter-digit) be prevented from application? 

- Should two character IDNs be allowed?

Jeff Neuman: @Annebeth - true.  We should separate ASCII and Non-ascii.

- Suggestion for reservation limited to two-letter ASCII codes. 

Nick Wenban-Smith (Nominet UK, RySG): I don't see how number/letter combination would fall under any definition of geo name

Susan Payne GNSO/IPC: letter/number 2-character combinations are not country codes and therefore the original reservation of these terms is not a geo name issue.More like an implementation fault

Jeff Neuman: @Susan - the rationale used by ICANN was all 2 characters......it was intentional

- Existing policy is to reserve 2 character strings.

Annebeth Lange, co-lead WT5: Heather, it is originally a code-list, but it has been used for identifying countries as TLDs since 1984

Greg Shatan: @Annabeth, why?  And is this your personal opinion or are you stating that as a co-lead of this group?

- Cannot existing policy be amended in this PDP?

Jeff Neuman: @Greg - Yes.  I just wanted to clarify that it was existing GNSO Policy and that it was not an implementation detail.  

Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): <Comment> Regarding @Heather's comment (What names (if any) deserve/require different treatment?)  I think we must open ourselves to the possibility of a mechanism that could take into account the interests of recognized subnational cultural/linguistic and/or indigenous groups during the process of reserving a geographic name (which presumably is linked to that aboriginal culture or linguistic minority in a substantial way). -A longer version of my comment is included in thegoogle doc.

- One agreed upon point in CCWG-UCTN, all two character ASCII strings should continue to be reserved.

6.  AOB

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180117/4b308238/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4687 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180117/4b308238/smime-0001.p7s>