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

Mike Rodenbaugh mike at rodenbaugh.com
Mon Aug 12 19:49:19 UTC 2019

Hi Olga,

I think #2 and #3 were addressed on the mail list last week, with
opposition stated by me and others.  I hope we do not have to state it


Mike Rodenbaugh
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 12:33 PM Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> 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 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 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 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 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>
> <#m_8940703270828618899_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190812/bd5804c0/attachment-0001.html>

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