[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [Ext] WT5 meeting today 31st July - Follow-up - points on languages and non-AGB terms

[Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch]

Dear all

Just for your convenience here is an excerpt from the summary of the public comment, which shows the clear division in the community:

●     “Summary of perspectives:
○        APTLD; dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG, Hamburg Top-Level-Domain GmbH, geoTLD.group;RDS-HN (Honduras); Dotzon GmbH; ALAC; Government of Spain, Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, SWITCH, Icelandic Ministry for Foreign Affairs, German GAC, oriGIn, European Broadcasting Union, Government of France, association of European regions for origin products (AREPO), Republic of Peru; Uninett Norid AS; ccNSO; CENTR, AFNIC; Portuguese Government: Support reserving translations in any language. Preferences if fewer languages are ultimately reserved:
■        Government of Spain, Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, SWITCH, Icelandic Ministry for Foreign Affairs, German GAC, oriGIn, European Broadcasting Union, government of France, association of European regions for origin products (AREPO), Republic of Peru, Portuguese Government: If translations in all languages are not reserved, reserve translations in official, relevant national, regional and community languages.
■        Uninett Norid AS; CENTR, AFNIC: If translations in all languages are not reserved, reserve translations in UN and official languages
■        ccNSO: If translations in all languages are not reserved, reserve translations in official languages
○        RySG: Some support for all languages; Some support for official languages only; Some support for UN and official languages
○        Governments of Argentina, Chile, and Colombia, Fundación Incluirme: Official, relevant national, regional and community languages
○        BC: Official language and commonly used languages
○        United States: UN and official languages
○        Brand Registry Group; Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG); Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC); International Trademark Association (INTA); Group of Registries: Official languages.
○        NCSG: No translations.
●       Concerns/New Ideas/Divergence:
○        Maintain status quo:
■        Government of Spain, Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, SWITCH, Icelandic Ministry for Foreign Affairs, German GAC, oriGIn, European Broadcasting Union, government of France, association of European regions for origin products (AREPO), Republic of Peru; Portuguese Government: Concerns - No factual explanation is contained in the report that would support the need to reduce the number of languages.
■        Uninett Norid AS; ccNSO; CENTR, AFNIC: Concerns - There have been no reports on possible issues from the 2012 round related to translations.
○        Reduce number of languages or eliminate reservation of translations:
■        RySG: Concerns - Some members point out that current restrictions are not based in international law and so further extending the reach to translations in any language is overly broad. Some members believe that the scope of restricting languages for these terms is too broad and impractical.
■        BRG: Concerns - Existing restrictions on languages are too broad and impractical.
■        IPC: Concerns - Reserving translations in all languages does not accord with the intention of protecting the names that countries use to describe themselves, reduces the predictability of the New gTLD Program, increases the likelihood of conflicts between supposed country names and the other potential co-existing uses of the same term in some language which bears no connection with the country in question. Reserving translations in all languages is contrary to Principle C from the 2007 GNSO Recommendations.
■        Group of Registries: Concerns - The current restrictions are not based in international law and so further extending the reach to translations in any languages is overly broad.
■        NCSG: Divergence - Does not support reservation of translations. Including the translation of the listed names can lead to the unnecessary expansion of the list of reserved names, making those names unfairly and arbitrarily unavailable. It restricts consumers’ freedom of choice.
○        Reserve translations of more types of strings:
■        Communications and Information Technology Commission (CITC): Concerns - Translations of the following strings should be addressed and reserved: long-form country/territory names, separable components, permutations and transpositions including for alpha-3 codes, name by which a country is commonly known.
○        Uninett Norid AS; ccNSO; CENTR, AFNIC: New Idea - Suggests a curative process, such as an objection procedure, for commonly used languages in the country in question.”

To my knowledge none of the proponents of maintaining the current rules (and/or considering careful limitations) listed above (which come, inter alia, from government, media, ccTLDs, business, civil society and domain industry) has accepted the radical limitation being proposed now, with the only exception of the GNSO-geoTLD group if I understand their inputs correctly.

In case of such a division the status quo should prevail, which is the line being taken in other controversial issues.

@staff: please read out on my behalf these comments (and the ones below) during the conference call tonight.

Best regards

Jorge

Von: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 7. August 2019 07:52
An: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>; Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange at norid.no>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
Cc: Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com>; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli at gmail.com>; Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org>; Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [Ext] WT5 meeting today 31st July - Follow-up - points on languages and non-AGB terms
Priorität: Hoch

Dear co-leads, staff, colleagues,


As a follow-up to my earlier message below:

- country, capital city names etc. also in non-UN or non-national languages have an important impact and conflict-potential both in geopolitical terms (e.g.  in languages spoken in adversarial states, countries with which there are political tensions) and in economic/reputational terms (e.g. names of export nations in widely spoken non-UN languages such as Hindi, Portuguese, Suaheli etc).

If it is the intention to increase predictability for applicants there are different means: de minimis rules (limits on most widely spoken languages); help by a Geonames Advisory Panel; help by GAC members; etc.

Let‘s not open new cans of worms just based on a not-proven assumption that the current rules create problems.

As to process: one month cannot overturn one year of discussions and ignore the opinion expressed very clearly by many stakeholders from different constituencies in the public comment.

In any case, please note this objection on the record and on tonight‘s call (which I may have to miss).

Let‘s look beyond narrow interests and take into account the larger picture and the voice expressed by many who are unable to attend each and every wt5 meeting, but who have clearly spoken their minds in the public comment.

best

Jorge



________________________________

Von: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
Datum: 5. August 2019 um 21:46:52 MESZ
An: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org>>, Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange at norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange at norid.no>>, 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>>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [Ext] WT5 meeting today 31st July - Follow-up

Dear all

Please note my disagreement with the proposal on languages. It does not reflect the split that came out of the public comment, where many stakeholders favored maintaining status quo. And the notion of „de facto official“ is vague and does not cover languages that are relevant to the communities. I feel that Steve Chan had made useful proposals in Marrakech that would have allowed for a solution along those lines.

The same goes for geonames beyond the 2012 requirements. We cannot just turn a blind eye and prepare the ground for many more „amazon“ cases. This was called for by a numerous cross-section of the community in the public comment. As a compromise such terms beyond the 2012 AGB with geographic meaning (e.g. adjective forms of countries, such as „Swiss“) which are identified as such with a modicum of diligence by the prospective applicabt should be subject to a contact obligation with the relevant authorities, in order to put them on notice.

best regards

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org>>
Datum: 5. August 2019 um 21:06:47 MESZ
An: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange at norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange at norid.no>>, 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>>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [Ext] WT5 meeting today 31st July - Follow-up

Dear all,

As a reminder on behalf of the leadership team, please carefully read the message below and provide any final input on the topics that are proposed to be closed on the upcoming call on Wednesday 7 August at 20:00 UTC:

  1.  Languages/translations
  2.  Additional categories of terms not included in the 2012 AGB
  3.  String contention resolution involving geographic names
Kind regards,
Emily

From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange at norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange at norid.no>>
Date: Wednesday, 31 July 2019 at 20:52
To: "ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>" <ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>>
Cc: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli at gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli at gmail.com>>, Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com<mailto:javrua at gmail.com>>, Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>>
Subject: [Ext] 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.

  1.  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”
--> For those countries that have no official language, include “de-facto” official languages (a list would need to be identified for this)
--> 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.

  1.  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.

  1.  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 2.2.1.4.2 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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20190807/f33ed49e/attachment-0001.html>