[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 14 November 2018

[Greg Shatan]

I've reviewed the remainder of the text that I hadn't fully reviewed before
our call.  I have no substantive comments on that part of the report.  I
have two non-substantive notes:

1. Page 57, Line 2:  There are 2 quotation marks after IslandsCayman.  One
should be removed.
2. Page 96, Line 10: Currently reads (incorrectly): "ALAC – At-Large
Advisory Community."  This should read:  "At-Large  -- At-Large Community."

Best Regards,

Greg

On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 11:21 AM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Please find attached the documents that were displayed in Adobe during the
> call today. As mentioned on the call, this version includes some comments
> from Greg Shatan that were missed in the version circulated just prior to
> the call. Apologies for any inconvenience. In the future, we will make sure
> to circulate documents by email that are being displayed in Adobe Connect,
> so everyone can follow along more easily.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Emily
>
>
>
> *From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 14 November 2018 at 16:44
> *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 14 November 2018
>
>
>
> Dear Work Track 5 members,
>
>
>
> Please see below the action items and notes from the Work Track 5 meeting
> today, 14 November 2018 at 1400 UTC.  *These high-level notes are
> designed to help WT5 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 at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-11-14+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Work+Track+5
> <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-11-14+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Work+Track+5>.
> *
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
>
>
> *Notes and Action Items:*
>
>
>
> *Action Items:*
>
>
>
> ACTION ITEM re: Recommendation 11: retain this recommendation.
>
> ACTION ITEM re: page 40: proposals reflected in deliberations -- revise
> the text, "once a gTLD is registered [change to "delegated and available
> for application"] with an intended use that is geographic in nature, all
> other variations and translation of this term are unconditionally available
> for registration by any entity or person.  Objection procedures could
> potentially still apply."
>
> ACTION ITEM re: page 42: Proposal re: Applicants for geographic names must
> apply to the GAC -- remove the text.  Add any suggestions for drawback text
> if sent to the list.
>
> ACTION ITEM re: page 77: change proposal to state, "Apply a ["clear and
> unambiguous" instead of "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.  Add to drawback text as
> provided by Alexander Shubert.
>
> ACTION ITEM: Page 22: Exceptionally reserved names: Add additional
> discussion into the deliberations.
>
> ACTION ITEM: Re: Preliminary Recommendation #13 -- circulate via email
> Greg Shatan's edits and explanations.
>
>
>
> *Notes:*
>
>
>
> 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates.
>
>
>
> 2. Recommendation 11 - non-capital city names:
>
>
>
> -- Considerable discussions around non-capital cities.
>
> -- Result of those discussions there was a spread of comments, which are
> included in the report and that there wasn't a significant swing either way.
>
> -- Purpose of the Initial Report is to solicit further comments, concerns,
> or new ideas to address this.
>
> -- Emails in the last week some think the recommendation should remain in
> as is, some want to see it tweaked, and some want to see it removed.
>
> -- Suggest we retain it in this section and that will allow comments on it.
>
>
>
> 3. Review new comments, clarifications, and edits to the draft Initial
> Report:
>
>
>
> *Page 40:* In deliberations -- proposals by Work Track members who
> believe that existing protections/restrictions included in the 2012 AGB
> should be reduced -- once a gTLD is registered [delegated and available for
> application] with an intended use that is geographic in nature, all other
> variations and translation of this term are unconditionally available for
> registration by any entity or person.  Objection procedures could
> potentially still apply.
>
> -- Note that this is part of the deliberations section but is not a
> recommendation by the WT, it is just presented to reflect the discussion on
> it.  Should be more clear that this is a proposal from just one member.
>
> -- Correct term is "delegated" and not "registered".  And "available for
> application".
>
>
>
> *Page 42:* Proposal re: Applicants for geographic names must apply to the
> GAC  -- a few comments from a few different people; not sure where this
> came from, it's not clear, don't support keeping it.
>
> -- Understanding that this came out of a brainstorming session at an ICANN
> meeting, but was not put forward by a WT member.  Should it be included?
> Or if there is opposition then it may or may not be worth keeping.
>
> -- Advocate that for the average geographic name this suggestion doesn't
> make sense.
>
> -- Not sure the GAC would be interested in this regardless.
>
> -- ACTION ITEM: Remove the text.
>
>
>
> *Page 77*, change proposal to state, "Apply a ["clear and unambiguous"
> instead of "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.
>
> -- Several new comments (page 78) are summarized.
>
> -- If we say objections are not allowed, then nobody can challenge them.
> This could be added into the drawbacks if it is not reflected.
>
> -- Not sure if we have the wording right yet.
>
> Alexander.berlin: My suggestion as "drawback text" for the "bright
> line":Some WT5 members argued to keep the amount of "protected" geo-names
> as small as possible. These WT members suggested that instead potential
> violations should be subject to "curative rights" - and that is
> "objections" in the application phase! So denying objections would have to
> be offset with expanding the list of protected domains; for example by
> eliminating the "non-geo use provision".
>
> Alexander.berlin: "protected domains" should be "protected strings"
>
> Justine Chew: I will go one step further and suggest, "Some believe that
> the right to object is a fundamental right that should be neither abrogated
> nor limited, especially in relation to any contemplated changes to policy
> touching on the availability or protection of geo-names strings."
>
>
>
> *Additional comments that may need further discussion:*
>
>
>
> *Page 22: Exceptionally reserved names*: Issues raised by Jaap Akkerhuis
> about the list that maybe the list didn't exist on the code point list so
> it should be removed. That is not accurate and we have removed the
> question, but may need to indicate what is unclear about the provision that
> needs to be changed.  It was applied correctly in the AGB, that the
> short-form version of the name (such as UN) is reserved.  The objections
> from Jaap are included in the deliberations section.
>
> -- To the extent Jaap is talking about two-letter codes and whether they
> have short or long forms, that doesn't matter since all two-letter codes
> are reserved anyway,  But we do have a question of whether we seek input on
> allowing United Nations to say it is reserved but we would like to use it.
>
> -- Are we making something bigger about this than it is?  If "United
> Nations" is a long form of UN, and countries can't apply for their full
> name, don't know that we need to revisit this.  Keep in mind that there is
> more than one way for ICANN to delegate a domain name.
>
> ACTION ITEM: Add additional discussion into the deliberations.
>
> Emily Barabas: One Work Track member raised the following points about
> exceptionally reserved codes:•             They are not officially reserved
> code points, although data about these codes is available at the ISO’s
> Online Browsing Platform,  and the definition of "exceptional reservations"
> is included in the current standard,  (ISO 3166-1:2013(E/F)) Section 7.5,
> Reservation of Code Elements.•       The list may be out of date.•      Not
> all exceptionally reserved codes have a short and long form name associated
> with them.•              Some exceptionally reserved codes do not refer to
> a country or territory (for example “UN” for United Nations).•       Some
> places may have more than one code associated with their name, for example
> Tristan da Cunha has both an assigned 2-letter code (SH) and an
> exceptionally reserved code (TA).
>
> Emily Barabas: This is the text that has been added to page 52 of the
> deliberations section based on Jaap's feedback
>
> Justine Chew: I am happy to defer to Jaap's feedback on the text for PR#6
>
> David McAuley: does that mean that Q e8 remains as deleted and that is
> that, jyst wondering what is shrort description of what we just agreed
>
> Susan Payne: I'm not going to go to the wire on this but I think if we
> create a policy that blocks the use of this term "united nations" even
> though it isn't a country name then we also create something that is
> difficult to unpick in future should the UN want that term.  There have
> been problems in the first round at the second level on this topic (happy
> to go into detail should anyone care).  I don't see the harm in at least
> giving scope to request release in future for a name which isn't actually a
> country or territory name
>
>
>
> *Substantive Comments from Greg Shatan:*
>
>
>
> *Page 13: Preliminary recommendation #2* -- just a point of
> clarification; not changing substance.
>
> Alan Greenberg (ALAC): Them make it "as applicable". Some or all allows
> the applicant to decide whether to include.
>
> Emily Barabas: Thanks Alan. Good suggestion. Any objections to Alan's
> suggestion?
>
>
>
> *Page 13: Preliminary recommendation #3* -- (A22) Not viable to change
> the substance of the recommendations at this stage; should be a comment
> submitted in the public comment period.
>
>
>
> *Page 18: Preliminary Recommendation #13* --
> [A51]/[A52]/[A53R52]/[A54R52] -- recirculate with Greg's edits and
> explanatory text.
>
>
>
> *Page 20: Question for community Input e2*: [A59] is "geographic name"
> the proper term to use?  Need to discuss this further.
>
>
>
> John Rodriguez: Question: I understand we aren't  conducting "consensus
> calls" yet for purposes of this intial draft report. If so, are we getting
> ahead of ourselves by using language such as "The Work Track recommends..."
> . Just curious and thanks for any clarification.
>
> -- Work Track is not the full WG -- as noted in the beginning of the
> report that these are preliminary recommendations that have not been
> subjected to any consensus calls.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181116/fa3e3100/attachment-0001.html>