[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes & Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 10 July 2019

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear Work Track 5 members,



Please see below the action items and notes from the Work Track 5 meeting on 10 July 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/2019-07-10+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Work+Track+5.



Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director



Notes and Action Items:

Actions:

Languages:
ACTION ITEM 1: WT5 members to indicate if they object to the suggested changes from Katrin (with the question of clarifying #3): From Katrin Ohlmer to Everyone: (10:48 AM)

I would appreciate if we could agree to 1. The official language of the country/territory/capital city. and 2. Translations of the country/territory/capital city in UN languages and the addition  of 3. Transliterations into ASCII and conversion to DNS labels. Otherwise capital cities such as Den Haag or São Tomé would not be able to be protected with denhaag/den-hag or sao-tome/saotome.
ACTION ITEM 2: Check for proposal from Jorge Cancio and circulate it to the list.  See: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/2019-June/001490.html.

Notes:

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

2. Discussion of Open Issues (Continued):

a. Non-AGB terms and possible subset of intended-use extension for non-AGB terms - See sections f.2.3.2, f.2.4 in the Supplemental Initial Report and the respective tabs in the Public Comment Review Tool.

Discussion:
-- On support only for only protecting additional terms in non-ASCII scripts refers to IDNs.  As mentioned in our comment, we would be ok with the small addition to handle non-ASCII terms identical to ASCII terms.
-- Wonder if instead of protections or not, which is binary, could we frame things in terms of an advisory process?  Answer: There have been discussions about a geo panel, but we need to be able to go away from what we have today we need to bridge our differences.
-- Should be looking at which geographical terms, as defined, are not protected.  You can’t define the non-AGB terms -- that is the universe.  You can try to define the terms you are trying to protect.
-- An advisory panel is simply just punting to an unknown group -- what will be there criteria?  What will be their expertise?  How would they decide?  How would it be different from the Geo Names Panel in the AGB?
-- For new countries, if a term is not on a reserved list it could be applied for and curative rights might apply.  This would assume that they would know about ICANN and TLDs.
-- Preventive rights are more predictable than curative rights, which could have different outcomes.
-- If we rely on curative rights they need to be available to all.
-- Governments may not be able to participate in objection processes (curative mechanisms).
-- Preventative measures sometimes ignore context.

b. Translations - See sections f.2.2.1.2 and questions e6 and e8 in the Supplemental Initial Report and the respective tabs in the Public Comment Review Tool.

Discussion:
-- Any strong objections to the changes from Katrin (with the question of clarifying #3): From Katrin Ohlmer to Everyone: (10:48 AM)

I would appreciate if we could agree to 1. The official language of the country/territory/capital city. and 2. Translations of the country/territory/capital city in UN languages and the addition  of 3. Transliterations into ASCII and conversion to DNS labels. Otherwise capital cities such as Den Haag or São Tomé would not be able to be protected with denhaag/den-hag or sao-tome/saotome.

c. Changes to contention resolution for geographic names - New item identified during deliberations

Discussion:
-- It might be helpful to try and determine and identify any issues that may have arose as a result of the 2012 string contention resolution rules around geographic names.
-- Might be helpful to consider curative rights rather than reservations/protections.  We would need to figure out the criteria and how to maximize predictability.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20190710/382d1800/attachment-0001.html>