[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda and Reminder to Submit Input on Initial Report - Work Track 5 meeting - 14 November 2018

Wed Nov 14 00:53:11 UTC 2018

Dear all

In response to the question below, I would favour leaving this 
recommendation in the Initial Report

  * On page 17 (recommendations section of the report) two WT members
    commented that they felt it was premature to include any preliminary
    recommendation in the Initial Report on the topic of non-capital
    city names. Do you support removing preliminary recommendation 11 on
    treatment of non-capital city names? Or do you favor leaving the
    recommendation in the report, noting that it can be changed for the
    Final Report based on community input and further discussion in the
    Work Track? Regardless of whether the recommendation is kept or
    removed, there are two questions for community input on this topic
    (e10 and e11) included in the Initial Report, so the group can
    expect additional community feedback through public comment to
    support further deliberations.

Marita


On 11/13/2018 6:54 AM, Emily Barabas wrote:
>
> Dear Work Track 5 members,
>
> This is a reminder that the deadline to provide input on the draft 
> Initial Report is *Friday 16 November*. If you would like the group to 
> discuss you input on the call tomorrow, please make sure to send your 
> input to the mailing list prior to the call.
>
> Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow’s call:
>
> 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates
>
> 2. Recommendation 11 - non-capital city names
>
> 3. Review new comments, clarifications, and edits to the draft Initial 
> Report
>
> 4. AOB
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Emily
>
> *From: *Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>
> *Date: *Thursday, 8 November 2018 at 20:09
> *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Initial Report next steps and deadline for input - Friday 
> 16 November
>
> Dear Work Track 5 members,
>
> Thanks to all who have submitted comments about the draft Initial 
> Report on the mailing list and those who were able to join the call 
> yesterday to go through some of the comments received that may require 
> further discussion. Please find attached a revised draft of the report 
> incorporating feedback received on the call. As a reminder, the target 
> date for publishing the Initial Report is 20 November. In view of this 
> timeline, the Work Track leadership team kindly requests that members 
> *submit any final feedback on the Initial Report no later than Friday 
> 16 November*. You can either insert comments in a copy of the attached 
> document and send to the WT5 mailing list or send your comments in the 
> body of an email to the WT5 list, identifying the page and line number 
> of the text you are referencing.
>
> Below you will find some of the questions/concerns raised in comments 
> by members that still may need additional input. The leadership team 
> is sending these on the mailing list to make sure that all members 
> have a chance to provide feedback, even if they were not able to join 
> the call.
>
>   * On page 17 (recommendations section of the report) two WT members
>     commented that they felt it was premature to include any
>     preliminary recommendation in the Initial Report on the topic of
>     non-capital city names. Do you support removing preliminary
>     recommendation 11 on treatment of non-capital city names? Or do
>     you favor leaving the recommendation in the report, noting that it
>     can be changed for the Final Report based on community input and
>     further discussion in the Work Track? Regardless of whether the
>     recommendation is kept or removed, there are two questions for
>     community input on this topic (e10 and e11) included in the
>     Initial Report, so the group can expect additional community
>     feedback through public comment to support further deliberations.
>   * On page 40 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions
>     the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Once a
>     gTLD is registered with an intended use that is geographic in
>     nature, all other variations and translations of this term are
>     unconditionally available for registration.” Another Work Track
>     member requested clarification on the meaning of “unconditionally
>     available” and also requested clarification about which entities
>     might be able to apply for these variations and translations under
>     the proposal. Can the author of this proposal provide any
>     additional clarification?
>   * On page 41 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions
>     the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member:
>     “Applicants for geographic names must apply to the GAC to receive
>     permission to submit an application for the string.” Another Work
>     Track member requested clarification about the scope and meaning
>     of this proposal, including how it would interact with other
>     requirements. Can the author of this proposal provide any
>     additional clarification?
>   * On page 76 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions
>     the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Apply
>     a "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not
>     explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected. No objection or
>     non-consent can be used to stop its registration.” Other Work
>     Track members raised concern that the term “bright line” rule may
>     not be widely used and understood, and further requested
>     clarification on the scope of this rule and the basis for
>     protection. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional
>     clarification?
>
> Note that Work Track members are welcome to comment on any other parts 
> of the draft in addition to the items listed above.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Emily
>
> *Emily Barabas *| Policy Manager
>
> *ICANN*| Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>
> Email: emily.barabas at icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181113/daef2157/attachment.html>