[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 meeting today 31st July - Follow-up

Annebeth Lange lange.annebeth at gmail.com
Thu Aug 1 21:13:59 UTC 2019

Dear Katrin

Thank you for your response. I will talk with the co-chairs and will come back to you.


Annebeth B Lange

> 1. aug. 2019 kl. 18:14 skrev Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer at dotzon.com>:
> Dear Annebeth,
> thank you for the summary.
> I would like to offer one observation regarding the first topic:
> The geoTLD.group supported the limitation to official language and UN languages if „The transposition of accented and diacritic characters in Latin-based scripts to their equivalent ASCII root“ will be included. After we reworked our proposal, I cannot remember opposition against our proposal. So I’m not sure if the below summary reflects our discussion properly and am surprised that our proposal has not been included. Can you please explain why the Co-Chairs decided not to include it?
> Thank you.
> On the third topic we’ll provide a proposal soon.
> Kind regards
> Katrin
> DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow
> Akazienstrasse 28
> 10823 Berlin
> Deutschland - Germany
> Tel: +49 30 49802722
> Fax: +49 30 49802727
> Mobile: +49 173 2019240
> ohlmer at dotzon.consulting
> www.dotzon.consulting
> Besuchen Sie uns auf LinkedIn.
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598
> Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin
> Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> Im Auftrag von Annebeth Lange
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 31. Juli 2019 21:05
> An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 meeting today 31st July - Follow-up
> Dear Work Track 5 members,
> On today’s call we discussed that we are reaching a conclusion on two topics that have been covered extensively: languages/translations and additional categories of terms not included in the 2012 AGB. We are also concluding discussion on contention resolution for contention sets that include one or more geographic names. This is a final call for input on these topics. At this stage, we are only looking for new ideas that might receive support from the WT as a whole or can at least be acceptable to a large number of members. Please do not restate positions or proposals that have already been raised and discussed by the group. 
> Topic: Languages/Translations
> Background: As a reminder, in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, a string was considered unavailable if it was a translation in any language of the following categories of country and territory names: long-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard; short-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard; separable component of a country name designated on the “Separable Country Names List.” In the 2012 round, applicants were required to obtain letters of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities for “An application for any string that is a representation, in any language, of the capital city name of any country or territory listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard.”
> Status: The following proposal appears to be acceptable to most WT members at this stage:
> For country and territory names and capital city names, change “in any language” to “UN and official languages”
> à For those countries that have no official language, include “de-facto” official languages  (a list would need to be identified for this)
> à Supplement with a curative mechanism that allows for objections in the case of commonly used languages 
> Justification discussed for this proposal:
> “Official languages” is a defined and finite list that protects the key languages most important to each country.
> “De-facto official languages” provides additional protections for countries that do not have an official language.
> “UN languages” is a defined and finite list already used for translation and interpretation in other parts of ICANN.
> Curative measures are available for additional languages not covered by preventative measures.
> Next Steps: The Work Track co-leaders believe that there is sufficient support within the Work Track to put this change forward in the recommendations. The Work Track co-leaders welcome volunteers to serve on a small group to further develop a proposal regarding curative measures related to languages/translations.
> Topic: Additional categories of terms not included in the 2012 AGB (“non-AGB Terms”)
> Background: Some WT members believe that additional categories of terms should be protected beyond those listed in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook.
> Status: While proposals have been put forward by several members and have been included in the Initial Report, at this stage, the co-leaders do not believe any proposals have widespread support from the Work Track. This is a final opportunity to put forward any new proposals or positions that you believe have sufficient support to become a Work Track recommendation.
> Next Steps: Unless there is agreement to make a change, the Work Track will recommend the maintaining the status quo from the 2012 Applicant Guidebook. 
> Topic: String Contention Resolution – Geographic Names
> Background: In the 2012 round, the method of last resort for resolving contention between two or more applications was an auction. The full Working Group is addressing auctions of last resort between two or more strings that are not geographic names. Work Track 5 could consider if the 2012 rules are still appropriate for contention sets that include one or more geographic names as defined in section of the Applicant Guidebook: 
> If there is more than one application for a string representing a certain geographic name, and the applications have requisite government approvals, the applications will be suspended pending resolution by the applicants.
> If a contention set is composed of multiple applications with documentation of support from the same government or public authority, the set will proceed to auction when requested by the government or public authority providing the documentation.
> If an application for a string representing a geographic name is in a contention set with applications for similar strings that have not been identified as geographical names, the set will proceed to auction. 
> Status: There have not yet been any proposals put forward at this point to change the existing rules. This is a final call for any proposals on this topic. The co-leaders note that the GeoTLD Group has indicated that they plan to submit a proposal on this topic.
> Next Steps: The Work Track will discuss any proposals received, or if none are submitted, the co-leaders will consider this issue closed and no changes will be recommended.
> If you have any new proposals or points to raise, please submit them to the mailing list no later than Tuesday 6 August. We anticipate closing discussion on these items on our call scheduled for Wednesday 7 August at 20:00 UTC.
> Kind regards,
> Olga Cavalli, Javier Rúa-Jovet, Martin Sutton and Annebeth Lange
> Work Track 5 Co-Leaders
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20190801/eab71652/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list