[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 28 November 2018

Wed Nov 28 22:46:21 UTC 2018

Hi Julie, all

Please note 2 corrections to notes on Slides 8 and 15 below marked in
yellow-highlighted red text

Thanks,

Justine Chew
-----

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 05:57, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear Work Track 5 members,
>
>
>
> Please see below the action items and notes from the Work Track 5 meeting
> today, 28 November 2018 at 2000 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/2018-11-28+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Work+Track+5
> <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-11-28+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Work+Track+5>.
> *
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
>
>
> *Notes and Action Items:*
>
>
>
> *Action Items:*
>
>
>
> *General*: Staff to send a comparison version with redlines to show the
> changes made from today's meeting.
>
>
>
> *Slide 5, Recommendations - page 12*: Remove "as applicable" at the end
> of the sentence.  Insert a reference to the relevant recommendation (11).
>
>
>
> *Slide 6, Recommendations - page 16*:  Change to: “Strings resulting from
> permutations and transpositions of alpha-3 codes listed in the ISO 3166-1
> standard should be allowed.”
>
>
>
> *Slide 7, Deliberations - Page 33*: Add a footnote: “Some believe that
> the question of jurisdiction and the applicability of national law is more
> complicated than stated in this bullet point. From this perspective, it is
> not given that it will always be the national law of the applicant that
> will be applicable in a possible legal dispute concerning a part of an
> application for a next-round gTLD-string.”
>
>
>
> *Slide 8, Deliberations - Page 34*: Swap "exclusive use" for
> "monopolization"
>
>
>
> *Slide 9, Deliberations - Page 34, Cont.:*  Edit text to: “Rights granted
> to geographic locations to protect geographic names are civil rights, which
> are qualitatively different than intellectual property rights.”
>
> "Civil rights are more general in scope than intellectual property rights
> and therefore more significant.”
>
>
>
> *Slides 10, 11, 12: Deliberations - Page 35-36*: Delete all of the text
> after the first two sentences and before the last two sentences.   Also,
> delete the footnotes.
>
>
>
> *Slides 13, 14: Deliberations - Page 50-51*: Add the bullets on slide 14
> to the relevant sections (please see document for details). Each is
> prefaced with “some believe that”.
>
>
>
> *Slide 15, Deliberations - Page 79*: Amend the second section to the text
> suggested by Justine: “A lack of letter of support/non-objection alone will
> not be a cause to suspend(to delete) hinder or suspend an application for
> such unprotected term.”
>
>
>
> *Notes:*
>
>
>
> 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates.
>
>
>
> Notes:
>
>
>
> 1.  Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates
>
>
>
> 2.  Initial Report – Outstanding Items
>
>
>
> -- Major changes to the Supplemental Initial Report should be done.
>
> -- We need to finalize the document and send it out for public comment.
>
>
>
> *Slide 5, Recommendations - Page 12*:
>
> -- Who decides if it is applicable or not applicable?  We should avoid
> these subjective terms.
>
> -- Support the change to remove "as applicable".  Insert a reference to
> the recommendations.
>
> -- Rather than trying to recreate the language relating to non-capital
> city names, we can actually reference the recommendations.
>
>
>
> *Slide 6, Recommendations - Page 16*:
>
> Change to: “Strings resulting from permutations and transpositions of
> alpha-3 codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard should be allowed.”
>
>
>
> *Slide 7, Deliberations - Page 33*:
>
> -- Bullet point is predicated with "Some believe that" so it is not
> necessary to add a footnote.
>
> -- Suggest adding "Others believe that..." followed by the text from
> Ann-Catherin Marcussen (bullet point 2).
>
> -- Suggest that the question of jurisdiction is distinct so we don't need
> "some believe".
>
> -- Staff suggest putting new text in as footnotes in deliberations.
>
> -- Footnotes may add confusion.  Could be made a public comments.
>
> -- Could modify the footnote
>
>
>
> *Slide 8, Deliberations - Page 34*:
>
> -- Not clear what are the other possible legal meanings of the word
> "monopolization".  Suggest not changing the text.
>
> -- But we aren't talking about competition law, where the term
> "monopolization" is used.
>
> -- The idea is that we are trying to elicit responses -- this is prefaced
> with "some believe that".  Don't think we need footnotes/comments.
>
>
>
> *Slide 9, Deliberations - Page 34, Cont.:*
>
> ACTION: Staff suggested edit attempting to incorporate feedback from both
> comments above while retaining original meaning:
>
> “Rights granted to geographic locations to protect geographic names are
> civil rights, which are qualitatively different than intellectual property
> rights.”
>
> "Civil rights are more general in scope than intellectual property rights
> and therefore more significant.”
>
>
>
> *Slides 10, 11, 12: Deliberations - Page 35-36*:
>
> -- This section gets into the weeds of trademark law: one solution is to
> cut everything after the first two sentences and before the last two
> sentences.
>
>
>
> *Slides 13, 14: Deliberations - Page 50-51:*
>
> Add the following bullets [slide 14] to the relevant sections (please see
> document for details). Each is prefaced with “some believe that”
>
>
>
> *Slide 15: Deliberations - Page 79*:
>
> -- Not sure who is the author of Proposal 32 to provide context.
>
> -- Amend the second section to the text suggested by Justine: “A lack of
> letter of support/non-objection alone will not be a cause to suspend hinder
> or suspend an application for such unprotected term.”
>
>
>
> Next Steps:
>
> -- Staff will provided a redlined document with the edits from this call,
> to make sure Work Track members agree.
>
> -- Publish the Supplemental Issue Report the first week in December.
>
>
>
> 3.  AOB: Request from Jorge Cancio to inquire with the Geonames Panel
> whether the used a definition of geographic names for their review.  Staff
> researched with GDD colleagues and determined that there is no definition.
> Staff can ask the panel to confirm the finding, but we intend to publish
> the Supplemental Initial Report so we will park this request for now until
> after the Initial Report is published.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181129/aaf8d0f4/attachment.html>