[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes & Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 28 August 2019

Julie Hedlund julie.hedlund at icann.org
Wed Aug 28 18:28:10 UTC 2019

Dear Work Track 5 members,

Please see below the action items and notes from the Work Track 5 meeting on 28 August 2019.  These high-level notes are designed to help WT5 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 at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-08-28+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Work+Track+5.

Kind regards,
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Notes and Action Items:


ACTION ITEM re: Additional Categories of Terms Not Included in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook -- Try to bridge the gap between Proposals 1 and 2 with a rewrite.  Perhaps additional limitations to Proposal 1 or making notifications voluntary.  WT5 members are encouraged to work on the list.
ACTION ITEM re: Closure of Discussion on Non-Capital City Names – Continue discussion of proposals on the list.


1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.

2. Closure of Discussion on Additional Categories of Terms Not Included in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook

-- There has been some movement on these proposals.  Don’t throw out the second proposal because it doesn’t go far enough.  It is trying to be a compromise.
-- Is there any way of measuring the support/opposition for the two proposals?
-- Agree that this is not really a binary decision -- the second proposal (originally from Susan and redrafted by Paul) is a step forward, but at the same time we are at the moment that we should go a bit further in solving a problem in the 2012 round.
-- Proposal 1 is a compromise because it is only a contact notification -- it means no recognition of any possible rights of those countries.  No obligation other than contact and also that ICANN Org can perform this notification.  There are lots of limitations, including timing.
-- Proposal 2: AGB 2012 already includes compromises: simply trying to find some common ground.  Proposal 1 is too broad as to allowing governments to determine what is a geo name.  Could be a huge list for notifications.  If the response to the notification had no legal or operational effect then that could make this workable.
-- Proposal 1: Why inform the government; what is the expected outcome? To know that such an application is being made... and then see what they want to do within the AGB and legal framework.
-- Proposal 1: Harms -- 1) chilling effect on free speech; 2) no definition around these geographic terms; 3) clearly there is some use for these notifications, such as for objections.
-- Proposal 1: Advantages -- Geonames have implications for people’s identities, governments.  If those interests are not taken into account from early in the process there might be conflicts.  Seeks to prevent the conflicts we witnessed in 2012.  Make applications for geonames visible.  Creates more predictability for applicants and interested governments.
-- Proposals 1 or 2: Can we think about the notification being voluntary?  A good faith effort.
--  ACTION: Try to bridge the gap between Proposals 1 and 2 with a rewrite.

3.  Closure of Discussion on Changes to String Contention Resolution

-- Strongly disagree: This is seeking to impose Swiss law on applicants anywhere in the world.
-- Applicable law doesn’t require ICANN to abide by applicable law of every country.
-- GDPR has a specific extraterritorial effect.
-- No consensus on this proposal.  Close the discussion.

4. Closure of Discussion on Non-Capital City Names

-- Added cities of 100,000 or more, it isn’t just exclusive to cities so not sure that provides clarity.
-- Suggest including also national legislation declaring a city: Just a thought to combine the two proposals, if we rephrase to "The applied for string is an exact match of a city name as listed on official city documents or as set out in national legislation designating the place as a city"
-- Proposal 2: Change to “and” as a connector instead of “and/or” between a) and b).  Original text from the AGB has “and”.
-- If changed to “and” there could be more support for the proposal.
-- ACTION: Continue discussion on the list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20190828/7bcc5079/attachment.html>

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