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

Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH ohlmer at dotzon.com
Wed Jul 24 13:10:20 UTC 2019


Dear All,

I also posted my proposed edits relating to the geoTLD.group comment in the Google doc,

kind regards,
Katrin

DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow
Akazienstrasse 28
10823 Berlin
Deutschland - Germany
Tel: +49 30 49802722
Fax: +49 30 49802727
Mobile: +49 173 2019240
ohlmer at dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer at dotzon.consulting>
www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting/>
Besuchen Sie uns auf LinkedIn<https://de.linkedin.com/company/dotzon-gmbh>.

DOTZON GmbH
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598
Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin

Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> Im Auftrag von Justine Chew
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. Juli 2019 14:54
An: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>; Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes & Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 24 July 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<mailto: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.



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<mailto: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/20190724/5b7afd23/attachment-0001.html>


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