[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Reminder: Deadline for feedback on Initial Report sections c, d, e - 10 October 2018

[Emily Barabas]

Dear Work Track members,

As discussed on Wednesday’s call, the WT co-leaders request that you submit any addition input on sections c, d, and e of the Initial Report to the mailing list by Wednesday 10 October 2018. The leadership team will soon share the remaining sections of the report with the WT for your review and input.

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, 3 October 2018 at 23:46
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 - 03 October 2018


Dear Work Track 5 members,



Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (03 October).  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.


Please also find attached the referenced document in PDF and Word including comments.


Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director



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

Notes/Action Items:


Actions:

ACTION ITEM: Preliminary recommendation #2:  Add a footnote explaining what "character" means

Notes:

1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates

2. Draft Initial Report Sections: Preliminary Recommendations, Options, and Questions

-- Comments about missing points -- the deliberation sections are still to come.  This is just three sections of six.
-- These are just arguments/recommendations/options at this point.
-- The question is are these the right alternatives to put out for public comment.
-- Questions for community input -- asking if these make sense and if anything is missing.
-- Any content is subject to public comment.

Preliminary recommendation #1:
-- Use of the word "certain" suggests there are other strings we have not addressed.  Suggest deleting the word.
-- Can we make it clear here that we are talking about the AGB as written rather than as applied?  I don't think we want as applied.

Preliminary recommendation #2:
-- Question: We don't give any explanation for why we are making this recommendation.  Answer: The explanation will be reflected in the deliberations in the Initial Report.  Section C is just the text of the deliberations.  There will be much more text in Section F on the deliberations, including pros and cons.
-- Looking at the last bullet point re: WT2 considering letter-number combinations -- should this also refer to number-number combinations?
ACTION ITEM:  Add a footnote explaining what "character" means.

Preliminary recommendation #3:
-- Move this into the category of strings that could be applied for with documentation on support or non-objection.
-- See also comments from Christopher Wilkinson.
-- There were discussions about how many of these are generic words as well as three-letter country codes.  There was a wider debate that was outside of scope since it was ccNSO territory.  With that in mind that is how we got to this recommendation.  There was quite a lot of debate on this.
-- Do we need to clarify that we are not recommending that any 3-character codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard be removed from delegation?  Or that .com should be removed from delegation?
-- Could have country names that could be delegated -- if Canada wants .canada there should be a pathway for them to getting it.
-- Not in favor of allowing the delegation of geographic names for non-geographic use.

Preliminary recommendation #4:
-- The problem is that we have not gotten agreement on prior authorization and geographical use.  As long as we have no consensus we have to maintain this restriction.

Recommendation #5:
-- Question: We say we recommend continuing something in the AGB but then we say it's a revision.  Are we saying the AGB is inconsistent with GNSO policy? Answer: Some members would like to see whether there is a discrepancy between the AGB and the policy -- so saying it is consistent with the AGB, but is not consistent with the policy.
-- Suggest: "As noted above this recommendation is consistent with the AGB as written [not "as drafted"] and doesn't address the issue of translation of these strings.  However, this is a revision to GNSO policy..."
-- Agree with the change above but not the order.  You had the policy first and then the AGB.
-- Maybe need an explanation somewhere at the beginning of the document.

Preliminary recommendation #6
-- The only thing that is listed are the code --- there are no names associated with a code as "exceptionally reserved".
-- This is a category that was in the 2012 AGB.
-- Example is "UK" -- The code is reserved on the ISO site, but not the name.
-- Append a list for the actual report.
-- When there is something reserved it doesn't mean that it is connected the specific area where we talk about it.  As to whether there is a list -- there used to be a list available on request from the ISO secretariat.

Preliminary recommendation #7:  No objections

Preliminary recommendation #8:  Third bullet has same issue as mentioned above -- No "exceptionally reserved" in the ISO 3166.

Preliminary recommendation #9: No objections

Preliminary recommendation #10: No objections

Preliminary recommendation #11:
Comments from the list:
-- Discussion of intended use is included in the deliberation section, including pros and cons.
-- Comment premature to include this preliminary recommendation as it stands.
-- Consider the use of the word "primarily" as in "use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name".  Maybe it isn't quite the right word, but we would want to avoid unintended consequences.  Also, not clear what we mean by "use".  This language was in the 2012 AGB -- not saying it was perfect, but don't recall this ever becoming an issue with a city name.  Before we suggest changes let's look at what happened in 2012.
-- One could also say if the applicant considers any use for the city he will have to get a letter from the city.
-- There has been a lot of back and forth on this issue -- we need to really take a look at whether we want to foreclose a bunch of words.
-- Ignores free expression rights to use words with geographic meaning in lawful ways.
-- Could address by putting in a contractual requirement that is more specific continuing to not use a TLD in a geographic sense.

Preliminary recommendation #12:
-- Need a separate recommendation dealing with the currency codes (ISO 4217).  they are very important in the financial markets.
-- Don't support adding protection of the currency code.
-- The sub-national place names should be open for reservation for non-geographic uses without a letter of support or non-objection.

2. ICANN63:

-- Released 3 subsections of the Initial Report.  Only a few comments so far.
-- Idea is to give people another week to submit comment, and then we will release the full package of the Initial Report.
-- Idea is that in addition to doing status updates and outreach at ICANN63 we'll have time to potentially get broader community input on issues, as well as to note what might be missing.
-- Three sessions on Saturday morning with lunch at the last session.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20181005/ce4e0740/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DRAFT - WT5 Initial Report - Sections C-E - 9.27.18 - with comments.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 304000 bytes
Desc: DRAFT - WT5 Initial Report - Sections C-E - 9.27.18 - with comments.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20181005/ce4e0740/DRAFT-WT5InitialReport-SectionsC-E-9.27.18-withcomments-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DRAFT - WT5 Initial Report - Sections C-E - 27.9.2018 - with comments-1.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 58909 bytes
Desc: DRAFT - WT5 Initial Report - Sections C-E - 27.9.2018 - with comments-1.docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20181005/ce4e0740/DRAFT-WT5InitialReport-SectionsC-E-27.9.2018-withcomments-1-0001.docx>