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

Wed Nov 14 14:03:31 UTC 2018

Yes, I think this is a valid comment. We could find ourselves right back 
at the beginning.

Marita

On 11/14/2018 8:48 AM, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
>
> Dear Emily and all
>
> Thanks very much for the new text. I will not be able to make the call 
> (am in Paris at the IGF), but let me share the general observation 
> that there *should not be changes in the last minute* which try to 
> change the balance of the text as had been prepared by staff, 
> especially changes which try to convey a different reflection of the 
> discussions already had in the work track.
>
> I also would like to urge that we avoid last minute changes intended 
> to change the description of what was said or argued by “some”. 
> Deleting or rephrasing of others’ opinions by others with a different 
> opinion should be refrained from. For instance, I feel that the 
> comments 69 and 70 from Greg go in that direction – I would urge not 
> to do that – otherwise others may feel the need to edit the opinions 
> expressed by others, which at this stage is really meaningless.
>
> Kindly
>
> Jorge
>
> *Von:*Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> *Im 
> Auftrag von *Emily Barabas
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 14. November 2018 14:26
> *An:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda and Reminder to 
> Submit Input on Initial Report - Work Track 5 meeting - 14 November 2018
>
> Dear all,
>
> Thanks to those who shared additional comments and suggestions on the 
> list. Please see the attached updated version of the document which we 
> will use on the call shortly. Comments highlighted in purple are those 
> added since last week’s call. Those in yellow require further 
> discussion and will be the focus of the call today.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Emily
>
> *From: *Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org 
> <mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org>>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 13 November 2018 at 12:54
> *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org 
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org 
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
> *Subject: *Proposed Agenda and Reminder to Submit Input on Initial 
> Report - Work Track 5 meeting - 14 November 2018
>
> 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 
> <mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org>>
> *Date: *Thursday, 8 November 2018 at 20:09
> *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org 
> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org 
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20181114/fb90cf98/attachment-0001.html>