[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Preparation for WT5 Meeting 14 August and Final Topic Discussion

Mon Aug 12 19:32:58 UTC 2019

Dear Work Track 5 members,

I trust this email finds you well.

Thank you to everyone who participated in this week’s call and contributed
on the mailing list to recent discussions. As documented in the meeting
notes, there are several items that require your attention between now and
our next call on Wednesday 14 August at 14:00 UTC. Please see the slides
from Wednesday’s call (attached) for background on these issues.

*By including these items in the email we are not implying that these
proposals have support from the leadership team, but rather that we are
attempting to assess whether any of these proposals are likely to receive
consensus support as is or with some level of modification.*

Please provide your views on the proposals below by* tomorrow* *Tuesday, 13
August* to help the co-leaders assess whether any might be able to receive
consensus support. Please include a rationale with your response.

*-*

*1. Translations/Languages*: At this stage, there does not seem to be
agreement to change the “in any language” standard for
protection/restriction of Country and Territory Names and Capital City
Names. If there is no agreement on a specific change, the status quo from
the 2012 New gTLD Round will remain.  If you think the Work Track
co-leaders have missed something and there is, indeed, a path forward that
can achieve consensus, this is your final opportunity to raise it.
However, if there is agreement by the WG to change the “in any language”
standard then the following two proposals will be considered.

A WT member had previously put forward a proposal on transposition of
Capital City Names that was proposed as an addition to the “official and UN
languages” proposal (see attached slides).  *For Capital City Names,
require support/non-objection letter for the transposition of accented and
diacritic characters in Latin-based scripts to their equivalent ASCII
root.  This would protect for example sao-tome as a DNS-Label of São Tomé
alongside the IDN version of the name (xn—so-tom-3ta7c).  Additional
example provided in the proposal: denhaag/den-haag would require letter of
support/non-objection. *

An addition, a WT member has proposed the following: In AGB 2.2.1.4.1
Treatment of Country or Territory Names, replace “in any language” with:

a. The official language of the country or territory; and

b. The de facto official language of the country or territory; and

c.  The UN languages; and

d.  The translations set out in a, b or c with the substitution of
diacritical characters for ASCII characters, special characters, or spaces
(eg. Austria as Österreich, or Osterreich).

For the purposes of the Applicant Guidebook, a de facto official language
of a country or territory is a language that is used for official
translations of the country or territory’s national laws.

For 2.2.1.4.2 part 1 on capital city names, rephrase to the following
language:

An application for any string that is a representation of the capital city
of any country or territory listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard in

a. The official language of the country or territory of the capital city; or

b. The de facto official language of the country or territory of the
capital city; or

c.  The UN languages; or

d.  Either a, b or c with the substitution of diacritical characters for
ASCII characters, special characters, or spaces (eg Den Haag as denhaag or
den-haag, São Tomé as sao-tome, saotome, sãotomé, são-tomé)

 *Rationale:*

*There appears to be general agreement in the work track that the current
text referring to “all languages” is unmanageable and does not provide
certainty for potential applicants. The concerns flagged around previous
proposals to narrowing the scope relate to uncertainty and a lack of
predictability. Further, on the 17 July call the position appeared to me to
be that UN languages were not necessarily relevant and excluded other
relevant languages to communities. However, I appreciate that some people
feel strongly about this and have included them in the proposal. To ensure
that relevant languages are relied upon and acknowledging not all countries
and territories have a clearly defined official language, I suggest we
include de facto official languages with a clear and defined scope.
Official translations of national laws are a public and verifiable source
that is readily available and reflects the language(s) the people of the
country or territory speak ie the language(s) are relevant. *

*2. Additional Categories of Terms Not Included in the 2012 AGB*: Last
week, there was a final call for proposals that members believe could
achieve consensus support on this topic. One proposal was put forward: *“Terms
beyond the 2012 AGB rules with geographic meaning (e.g. adjective forms of
countries, such as “Swiss”) which may be identified as such with a modicum
of diligence by the prospective applicant and/or after consulting, under
confidentiality terms, the Advisory Geonames Panel, shall be subject to a
contact obligation with the relevant public authorities, in order to put
them on notice.”*

Other WT5 members suggest that this would only apply if the gTLD or string
was being used in connection with the geographic meaning.

*3. String Contention Resolution – Geographic Names*: Last week one
proposal was put forward that required additional time for WT5 members to
review:

*Update Applicant Guidebook, Chapter 2.2.1.4.4 with: If an application for
a string representing a geographic name is in a contention set with
applications for identical strings that have not been identified as
geographical names, the string contention will be resolved using the string
contention procedures described in Module 4. *

*Update Applicant Guidebook, Module 4. with:*

*A// In case there is contention for a string where one application intends
to use the string as a non-capital city name or designated the TLD to
targeting it to a geographic meaning, preference should be given to the
applicant who will use the TLD for geographic purposes if the applicant for
the geoTLD is based in a country where national law gives precedent to city
and/or regional names.*

*RATIONALE: This would reflect national law e.g. in countries like
Switzerland and Germany, where e.g. city names have more rights that
holders of the same name.*

*B// If there is more than one applicant for an identical string
representing a geographic name, and the applications have requisite
government approvals, the applicant with the larger no of inhabitants will
prevail over the smaller one. As the criteria “size” has been used in the
CPE criteria, it is apparently a well-accepted criteria.*

*RATIONALE: This would reflect the current rule of the Applicant Guidebook
capital city has priority over smaller city.*

*4. Member Proposals from the Initial Report on Scope of Protections
(Proposals* *6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 37)**:* Over the last couple of months, we
have been referencing this document[docs.google.com]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1rsyxCEBd6ax3Rb-5Fw1kms-5FE9n29XL1-5Flw3Yp9XQ4TeCY_edit-3Fts-3D5ce64d6d-23heading-3Dh.j7jy935ryg4k&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=ibk5NLRIVEyM8BmUAuiyFZFoV87dA6GCJADyQmNq0Zk&s=kqYJykVu4sGjVFR2cFjplDm81zbVZ0GnnkdEfx3RMbc&e=>,
which summarizes comments on the WT5 supplemental Initial Report (full text
of comments here [docs.google.com]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1WKSC-5FpPBviCnbHxW171ZIp4CzuhQXRCV1NR2ruagrxs_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=ibk5NLRIVEyM8BmUAuiyFZFoV87dA6GCJADyQmNq0Zk&s=Bsx0wWBZYVTvb6bMWJTTbgnuVlPV4GRSN_CBc22YpTM&e=>).
Beginning at the bottom of page 32 of the summary document, you will find a
summary of comments on some of the proposals included in the report.
Elements of these proposals have been discussed in the context of
revisiting the draft recommendations as well as broader discussions in the
Work Track. Public comments reflect that there is a mix of perspectives in
the community on the different proposals – some in favor and some opposed
to each, similar to what the co-leaders have observed in WT discussions. At
this stage, the co-leaders do not anticipate that re-reviewing the
proposals will lead to agreement in the Work Track on specific changes to
the draft recommendations.

*5. Non-Capital City Names*: A WT member has proposed amending the text in
AGB 2.2.1.4.2 part 2 on non-capital city names by adding the blue text: “It
is clear from applicant statements within the application that the
applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city
name. For the avoidance of doubt, where the applicant states in their
application that they intend to use the TLD as a .Brand (intend to have
Specification 13 in their Registry Agreement) it will be taken that the TLD
will not be used primarily for purposes associated with the city name.”

* Rationale:*

*The current AGB text states that “city names present challenges because
city names may also be generic terms or brand names, and in many cases city
names are not unique”. This language does not aim to change the position
from the AGB 2012, but merely aims to provide greater clarity and certainty
for potential applicants. At the same time, it ensures that the relevant
authorities are consulted when an applicant intends to use a TLD for
purposes associated with a city. If a government or local authority is
concerned with an application, they are not precluded from filing an
objection (as they could in 2012) or filing their own application. The
current rules on resolving contention sets in AGB 2.2.1.4.4 or module 4
will not be impacted by the text.*

Please remember to provide your views on these below by* tomorrow* *Tuesday,
13 August,* including a rationale with your response.

Kind regards,

Olga

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Libre
de virus. www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20190812/ed8b785d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WT5 7 August 2019 v2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 365825 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20190812/ed8b785d/WT57August2019v2-0001.pdf>