[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 20 February 2019

Wed Feb 20 21:32:25 UTC 2019

Dear Work Track 5 members,

Please see below the action items and notes from the Work Track 5 meeting today, 20 February 2019 at 20:00 UTC.  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/2019-02-20+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Work+Track+5.

Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Notes and Action Items:

1  Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs):  No updates provided.

2.  WT5 Supplemental Initial Report Public Comments Overview

-- Many comments received and high level of interest and responses from the community.

3.  Approach for Reviewing Public Comments

-- Need to review the comments with the focus on whether they fall into the following classifications: agreement, new idea, concerns, divergence.  Look for areas of consensus/trending/alignment.
-- Where there are new ideas it would be helpful if WT5 members could take these back to their groups.
-- Summarize: areas of agreement/divergence.

4.  Begin Review of Public Comments:

General Comments:
Lines 4, 5, 6, - CENTR&AFNIC, ccNSO, APTLD -- [Overview - support existing 2012 rules]
Line 7, Tom Dale (individual) -- greement (qualified, but with retaining the 2012 AGB framework for geographic names with adjustments)
Line 8, Government of Brazil -- [General Comments] Agreement (qualified, but with retaining the 2012 AGB framework for geographic names with adjustments)
Lines 9, 10, 11, Uninett Norid AS -- Agreement/general comment -- supports most of 2012 rules.
Line 12, Governments of Argentina, Chile, and Colombia, Fundación Incluirme -- Agreement
Line 13, 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, The Finnish Transport and Communications Agency (Traficom) -- [Overview - support for most of the existing 2012 rules. Opposition to how the non-capital city names were treated and supports some of the proposals to make that process more robust]
Line 14, Governments of Argentina, Chile, and Colombia, Fundación Incluirme -- overview
Lines 15 & 16, GAC -- overview
Line 17, Portuguese Government -- [Overview - support for most of the existing 2012 rules. Opposition to how the non-capital city names were treated and supports some of the proposals to make that process more robust]
Line 18, ALAC -- overview/introduction
Line 19,  MARQUES -- overview
Line 20, MARQUES -- overview: -- Has objections, but still supports most of 2012 rules as a compromise
-- Opposes expansion of the scope of geo names
Line 21, INTA -- overview
Line 22, RySG -- Agreement (qualified -- details below)
Line 23, INTA -- -- Has objections, but still supports most of 2012 rules as a compromise
-- Opposes expansion of the scope of geo names
Line 24, BC -- overview
Line 25, APTLD -- New Idea [Presumably in reference to f.1.2.1 Who owns a string? Who has rights to a string? What is the appropriate role of geographic communities and governments?]
Line 26, APTLD -- New Idea [Presumably in reference to f.1.2.4 What is a geographic name for the purposes of the New gTLD Program? Does the intended use of the string matter? ]
Line 27, Christopher Wilkinson -- overview
Line 28, Communications and Information Technology Commission (CITC) -- overview
Line 29, dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG -- overview
Line 30, Hamburg Top-Level-Domain GmbH -- overview
Line 31, BRG -- overview/background
Line 32, BC -- overview
Line 33, BC -- [Overview on corporate brands matching geo terms]

Justine Chew: AC line 33 - ALAC's comment, I am uncomfortable with the remark "Suggests that if WT5 does extend geo names protections, further community deliberations may be needed" because it is a little misleading, since in general the ALAC's statement is supportive of protection of geo names. I would request that the remark be amended to "Suggests that if WT5 does extend expansion of geoname availability, further community deliberations may be needed."

Line 34, BC -- [Overview on role of GAC Advice]
Line 35, BRG -- overview/background
Lines 36 & 37, ALAC -- overview/introduction
Line 38, Group of Registries: Uniregistry, Minds + Machines Group , Top  Level  Design, Amazon Registry Services, Employ Media LLC -- overview
-- May apply to basis for protections
Line 39, United States -- overview -- -- Prefers curative over preventative to protect government interest
Line 40, NCSG -- general overview -- -- Supports 2007 policy
-- Opposes expansion of the scope of geo names
Line 41, Christopher Wilkinson -- [Overview about the recommendations]
Line 42, Christopher Wilkinson -- [Overview. The concluding sentence does not appear accurate]
Lines 43 & 44, Christopher Wilkinson -- [Appears to be a summary statement]
Line 45, Christopher Wilkinson -- Concerns (about non-AGB terms)
Line 46, BC -- overview

For the next call: Preliminary Recommendations.

5. AOB: Upcoming call -- February 27, 2019 at 05:00 UTC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20190220/cdee37a3/attachment-0001.html>