[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes & Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 24 July 2019

Wed Jul 24 12:53:31 UTC 2019

Dear Martin, Julie and Emily,

*RE: Preventative and curative mechanisms (e3): *

-- The comment from the geoTLD.group supports additional preventative
measures (second bullet).  ALAC also? * ACTION: Staff will check.*

Please note that I have posted within the Googledoc on page 28, my proposed
edits and explanation to the point I raised on e3 with respect to ALAC's
comments .

Kind regards,
Justine
-----

On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 20:41, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear Work Track 5 members,
>
>
>
> Please see below the action items and notes from the Work Track 5 meeting
> on 24 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/2019-07-24+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Work+Track+5
> <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-24+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Work+Track+5>.
> *
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
>
>
> *Notes and Action Items:*
>
>
>
> *Actions:*
>
>
>
> Preventative and curative mechanisms (e3): The comment from the
> geoTLD.group supports additional preventative measures (second bullet).
> ALAC also? * ACTION ITEM: Staff will check.*
>
>
>
> *Notes:*
>
>
>
> 1. Updates to Statements of Interest:  No updates provided.
>
>
>
> 2. Languages and Translations:
>
>
>
> Proposal: UN languages + official languages and/or + de facto official
> languages
>
>
>
> Discussion:
>
> -- Question: On what basis is this proposal being made?  Why include UN
> languages as these have no relevance to the country?  Answer: Generally the
> main thrust of this proposal is to the available delegations from the
> current requirements in the current AGB (restricted now to all languages).
> The group did not have any preliminary recommendations for languages.  The
> Initial Report just opened it up as a question.
>
> -- Question: In the spirit of compromise, could we have a discussion
> around national official languages?
>
> -- Question: Did the requirement for all languages cause a problem in the
> previous round?  Answer: We have WT5 members who have been concerned about
> the current limits on delegation.  But not sure that we’ve seen evidence of
> actual problems.  It may have prevented someone from applying as it may
> have prevented delegation.
>
> -- Question to WT5 members: Do you think it’s practical to have
> restrictions on the basis of 7.5K languages?
>
> -- Countries could be asked to nominate their national languages, just as
> the Red Cross was recently asked to identify the various names of its
> worldwide National Societies.
>
> -- We discussed this proposal a few calls back, and came to the conclusion
> that not all countries will provide feedback on such a request. So it will
> likely lead to an incomplete list.
>
> -- ICANN refused to provide applicants/operators a definitive list of
> country and territory names covered by spec 5.  I can’t see how they would
> agree to provide a list of 7,000 official languages.
>
> -- Strongly support limitation here to narrow the AGB. A restriction on
> 7000+ languages does not support consumer choice or competition
>
> -- Still don't see the need to "fix" something that has not been a
> problem, especially since country names (unlike capital/city names, are
> unique.
>
> -- Unfortunately, country names are not unique. Consider the multiple
> "guinea" examples .
>
> -- One objective is to make this more workable for applicants.
>
> -- This proposal is random.  Don’t see the justification.
>
> -- Question: What if a country nominated languages that it was de facto
> official?  The idea of the country deciding what is relevant?
>
> -- Another proposal has been UN + Portuguese + German -- or to have a
> clear list.
>
> -- Predictability is a goal.
>
> -- Or could have UN + Portuguese and others in the “top 10” of widely
> spoken languages in the world.
>
> -- Don't believe that restricting on any existing language helps
> applicants who may not be aware of obscure or little used languages. This
> could have a distinct chilling effect on applications, and cause the
> rejection of applications for reasons that an applicant could not have
> reasonably foreseen.
>
> -- Picking a number is adding randomness.
>
> -- Problem with any  restricted list, is that - as I gather from the
> discussion - that any other translation would NOT be protected. That would
> not be acceptable.
>
> -- It is predictable for applicants, which is what we want to achieve.
>
> -- In the spirit of moving forward and reaching agreeable compromise, on
> the earlier point of languages, some of my concerns are alleviated if we
> can justify this on the basis that this gives applicants and evaluators
> certainty -- referring to the 6 UN languages.
>
>
>
> 3. Additional categories of terms not included in the 2012 Applicant
> Guidebook
>
>
>
> Discussion:
>
> -- When we look at the comments there is a portion of the community that
> reluctantly accepted parts of the 2012 AGB, but were resistant to including
> new ad hoc restrictions.
>
> -- Need to understand the rationale for any additional restrictions.
>
> -- Don't have anything in writing but something that would prevent the
> repeat of .amazon would be good to consider.
>
> -- The Final Report should also provide a clearly articulated rationale
> for any changes or new recommendations. so there is no misunderstanding
> or confusion as to the intention behind the recommendation/change.
>
> -- The debate was about the .amazon case and if we were able to come up
> with a list to avoid this scenario.
>
> -- Could reverse the burden of proof that all geographical names could be
> restricted until they are approved.
>
> -- What do people mean by avoiding the .amazon scenario?  To some it could
> mean that it should have been unavailable, to others that it should have
> been allowed.  There are diverse opinions.
>
> -- Helpful if you can use a third-party authority to determine
> restrictions/non-objection or support.
>
> -- The scenario is that there are countries which consider some terms
> being relevant geo terms and how to protect them, beyond their country
> and capital city name.
>
> -- Having a list with strings that cover .amazon and have them treated as
> geographic names attracting preventative protection. *cover strings like
> .amazon.
>
> -- How does that reconcile with the public comment responses?
>
> -- Need clear lists/authority.  Some examples: International placenames -
> published lists and web searches, United Nations Group of Experts on
> Geographical Names - list of searchable geographical names databases,
> American Name Society - list of international resources for names
> (including placenames), Geonames, Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names
> Online.
>
> -- There is bound to be opposing opinions in answer to your question. But
> on the basis that .amazon has been a problem, I think it raises a question
> that begs resolution.
>
> -- The discussion around this topic has been articulated by many community
> members, also in the public comments.
>
> -- One option is to give governments the option to support/non-object to
> anything that could be a geographic name.
>
> -- Some places are across several country and government jurisdictions as
> well .
>
> -- No precedent that we can rely on.  Many different opinions on ways to
> resolve this.  Don’t see any clear options.
>
>
>
> 4. Substantive review of comments in response to Initial Report questions
> e1-e5:
>
>
>
> See the questions and all related comments in the Public Comment review
> tool:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WKSC_pPBviCnbHxW171ZIp4CzuhQXRCV1NR2ruagrxs/edit?pli=1#gid=543808477
>
>
>
>
> *Feedback on experiences from the 2012 round (Initial Report question e1):*
>
> -- Reminder: The purpose of this exercise is to determine if any of the
> comments impact the WT’s overall thinking about its approach to preliminary
> recommendations.
>
> -- Some of these comments are in direct conflict with certain preliminary
> recommendations.
>
>
>
> *Preventative and curative mechanisms (e3): *
>
> -- The comment from the geoTLD.group supports additional preventative
> measures (second bullet).  ALAC also? * ACTION: Staff will check.*
>
> -- Didn’t discuss curative measures in previous discussions.  Do we deal
> with some things preventively and some things curatively?  Could this help
> with the deadlock on non-AGB terms? And I mean this should be considered
> beyond just languages, but more broadly in our recommendations where we are
> having difficulty finding compromise on purely preventative measures.
>
> -- Sounds interesting but does that solve predictability issues?
>
> -- Preventative measures add to predictability while curative measures can
> lead to uncertainty for applicants.
>
> -- At least it provides more initial predictability to the applicant that
> outright rejection follows preventative. There's never going to be
> certainty/predictability in anything that might be subject of a later legal
> dispute (whether UDRP, URS, litigation, WTO dispute, etc).
>
>
>
> *Proposed principles to guide policy development (e4) -- Start on the next
> call.*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190724/cbafc6cc/attachment-0001.html>