[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 11 July 2018

Wed Jul 11 21:09:59 UTC 2018

Dear Work Track 5 members,

Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (11 July).  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 slides as well as the Working Document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRUXAo/edit. 

Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

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

Notes/Action Items:

Action Items:  

Change the calls to 90 minutes every other week.
WT5 members should review and comment on the collaborative working document

Notes:

1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 

-- No SOI updates

-- Change calls to 90 minutes every other week.

2. Recap of ICANN62 sessions 

Slide 5, Session 1 Feedback

Some of the Session 1 feedback received:

-- Support for universal protections –  based on local or national laws, UN lists. Should respect their historical, sometimes unique, identifiers. -- Against universal protections – no universal definition of city. No basis for this level of protections. Local laws only applicable in jurisdiction. 

-- Relevant govt/public authorities – could depend on which city applicant is targeting. Or may be dependent upon a certain list of non-capital city names.

Slide 6, Session 1 Feedback, Cont.

-- Definitive list of protected terms - support for a list, but unclear if there is such a list. Some suggestions of using UN lists, population, airport locations.-- Should usage matter – some support for existing rules, where govt/public authority approval needed only when used as a city name. If approval is needed regardless of usage, difficult to determine what entity can grant approval (e.g., all cities with the same name?).

Slide 7, Session 2 Feedback

-- Discussed principles as they relate to non-capital city names:

Purpose: principles may be used as a way to evaluate potential proposed solutions and help the group focus on high-level goals.-- Sought additional proposals “in the middle” between extremes.

Some of the session 2 feedback:

-- Suggestion that rather than meeting in the middle, it could be about improving the parts of the existing process that did not work as well as they could have.-- General support for the principles, with the addition of “simplicity”-- How do we create incentives for parties to work together?

Slide 8: Results of the Sessions:

-- Interactive discussions validating many of the key points and positions raised in the Work Track but from new participants.-- Additional new points and ideas raised; Some common ground identified on principles.

-- Input from the Cross-Community sessions is included in the working document.

Discussion:

-- Unless someone has a view that presents a middle ground, it is not useful to comment if the comment does not present anything new.

-- Question: To what use will the working document ultimately be put?  Is it the beginnings of an official document of the working group or is it only some kind of brainstorming document?  Thanks Answer:    The document is intended to capture ideas, arguments, and proposals to support future discussion and eventually assist in the development of the WT's outputs.  Many ideas have been raised, and it attempts to help ensure that no threads of the conversation are lost.

-- Is it time for us to start identifying where we have general agreement, and where we have divergence.

-- To help find common ground: We spend a lot of time going back and forth on the type of names, lists, uses -- but very little time on the type of protection or way that the issue can be raised.  We would be far better served to look at challenge-type protections, rather than preventive/prescriptive-type protections.  That would allow each challenge to be evaluated on its merit.

3. Non-Capital City Names 

Slide 10: Principles and Next Steps

Reminder: Why focus on Principles?

-- If we agree on the principles, we can test our potential changes against them to make sure we are on the right track.

During the Cross-Community Sessions, some support was expressed for several principles, detailed on the following slides. Does the Work Track still feel that these are valid? Summary of proposed principles:

-- Allow for new non-capital city gTLDs

-- Increase predictability for all parties-- Reducing the reasons and likelihood for conflict within the process, as well as after delegation

-- Simplicity – simple to understand, follow, and implement

What other principles should be considered? 

Would it be helpful to look at some of the solutions proposed in the Work Track for non-capital city names in light of these principles?

Discussion:

-- Add predictability of time frames.

-- We should try to isolate what we think were the problems in the last round that we are trying to address.

-- Question: What does "allow for new non-capital city gTLDs" mean?  Does it mean should govts be allowed to exclusively own words referring to cities?  A clarification of meaning would be helpful. Answer: Noting that a principle could be that non-capital city gTLDs should be allowed.  Answer: Essentially, the principle is to allow these strings to be delegated, as opposed, for example, to being reserved.

-- We could come up with 10 principles and then look at ideal implementation.  So, principles at the top and then ideal implementation.  Then we map each of our issues against the ideal implementation.  So -- it looks like Part A:  Principles; Part B:  Policy (pretty empty  just yet) and Part C:  Ideal Implementation...we then think about how to match our principles with ideal implementation in each case and then the policy will fall from it...then we ditch the Implementation text and put that somewhere in a Best Practices Guideline...just  thinking about how to structure a practical document.

-- Change the principle: to allow for new gTLDs, whether that is a non-capital city, or a brand, or a generic, or professional restricted.  The principle should be in favor of application and delegation.

-- The third principle regarding "conflict" assumes that there is agreement a  "conflict" exists but I understand there are divergent views as to whether there is or isn't a conflict.

-- Keep on focusing on problems that require solutions.

-- As we point out problems from the last round, we should be careful to distinguish between problems caused by someone being delegated a non-capital city name vs. problems that were caused by the flawed ICANN objection process itself.   We don't want to fix a problem caused by the ICANN process by doubling down on the problem and just doing even more of the same that caused the problems in the first place.  

-- When there are competing legitimate interests, it is appropriate that those interests be given an opportunity to apply, so assuming "reducing conflict" is not necessarily a bad thing, because it is a process that allows for competing legitimate interests to be resolved fairly.

-- In some countries there are laws that are changing quickly -- could one say that they are changing because of difficulties that people have encountered?  Has there been any record of any continuous systematic rejection for all geographic names?  Look at where are the bottlenecks and find solutions for that -- we can't find solutions for everything.

-- What is a possible norm that could take into account the competing interests?

-- Regarding bottlenecks or other problems encountered, Greg started a list of cases: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jPa4jdBgo8P2aC6G4pzLoFTfyocIeon8qVD7Q9mlM5A/edit#gid=0

-- Continue to add ideas to the Working Document.

-- Example of non-capital city place name: Bingo is an example of a TLD from the first round that also corresponds to a non-capital city names.  15 places it turns out.  See https://us.geotargit.com/called.php?qcity=Bingo

-- What interest is being served by letters of non-objection for Bingo from the non-capital cities?  They may be interested and also confusion of the usage of the same name.

-- Confusion cannot be easily assumed.

4. Potential Geographic Terms Not Included in the 2012 AGB 

Slide 12: Principles -- Terms not in the 2012 AGB

We have previously discussed potential categories of strings not included in the Applicant Guidebook that may be considered geographic names.

Do the principles identified for non-capital city names also apply to potential solutions for non-AGB terms?

-- Allow for new gTLDs

-- Predictability

-- Reducing the reasons for conflict

-- Simplicity

If yes, why? If no, what principles might we apply?

Discussion:

-- Suggest we start the process around the remedies or tools -- do it backwards.  Helpful to try a different approach.

5. AOB: None

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180711/f756fdba/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WT5 meeting_11 July 2018_v2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 555666 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180711/f756fdba/WT5meeting_11July2018_v2-0001.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/20180711/f756fdba/smime-0001.p7s>