[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes & Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 4 September 2019

[Emily Barabas]

Dear Work Track 5 members,

Please see below the action items and notes from the Work Track 5 meeting on 4 September 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/x/gITkBg.


Kind regards,

Emily



Notes and Action Items:

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 was strong objection to a contact obligation on the applicant for the adjectival forms, unless ICANN is making the contact, not the applicant.
-- Opposition, chilling effect on speech via notification.
-- Support, but the proposal doesn’t go far enough.  Decision to make contact is the applicant’s, either the applicant makes contact or ICANN Org.
-- Concerns about the contact obligation and that it is only attached to the adjectival form, which could become a contact obligation for everything.
-- Don’t think the adjectival form with the early reveal should be the fall back.
-- The more complexity the more likelihood of failure. If we do something different it should be simple.
-- Should not treat adjectival forms of country names differently to all other geographic terms.

-- The applicant should be free to contact him/herself... but we don't need to say this explicitly (not mandatory).
-- New Proposal: Given that the concern is with the early notice portion - if we remove that and the notice happens when the application is publicly revealed, would that make it acceptable?
-- A contact provision is intended to smoothen the process and prevent conflicts at a later date. It should not be seen in terms of stakeholder inequality. It’s just a fact of life that governments are geographically defined entities.
-- Could be support for ICANN Org to have some kind of process for notice for adjectival names.
-- If the applications are publicly revealed, a government paying attention and pouring over the list can decide to object / raise concerns - the notice to governments is only a notice/warning
.
-- We’ve tried to have a compromise from every side, but in the end we go back to original arguments.
-- New Proposal: When applications are revealed, if governments can do a search on adjectival forms, would that make it better.
-- WG will not be re-opening or re-litigating the work of WT5 or its proposals.  WT5 co-leaders could state where you are now to the plenary (summary of discussions along with the extent of the support for the proposal in question) and pass the issue to the plenary to address in a more time-limited manner. If the full WG reaches consensus there is still an opportunity at the WG level.
-- There seems to be broad support as well as some opposition to moving forward with a limited agreement adjectival forms of names.
-- Suggestion that there could be a mailing list of interested parties that would receive a list of applied for strings when they are revealed. Governments and other parties could sign up for the list as a form of notice.
-- Note that issues should only be sent to plenary if it is apparent to the leadership team that consensus may be possible on the issue. Consensus does not, however, mean unanimity.
-- Suggestion that individuals/governments can have their own lists of names that are important to them and a system could automatically search the list of applied for strings to see if there are any matches.
-- Suggestion to have a straw poll over the mailing list about positions on the proposal regarding adjectival forms of country names. This would give those not on the call an opportunity to respond.
-- For some members it may be difficult to respond to the poll question because there are dependencies. They will only support the proposal as a compromise if it went no further and no other forms would receive further protection/action by this Work Track. Concern raised about a “slippery slope.”
3. Closure of Discussion on Non-Capital City Names
-- High level overview of proposals remaining under consideration for non-capital city names.

     *   The first proposal does not seek to change the rules of the 2012 AGB. It seeks to provide clarification with respect to a particular type of string, .brands.
     *   The second proposal provides a list of city names for which a letter of support or non-objection is required if the applicant intends to use the string primarily for purposes associated with the city name.
-- Read through on proposal 1 (see slides for text)
-- One member raised that there is still no clear definition of a city name. Why should localities with very small populations get these protections?
-- Another member noted that the UN list provided in the proposals is not actually only a list of cities. It is a list of cities, agglomerations, and other urban places. The group has discussed this issue extensive and has not been able to find an answer.
-- Review of rationale for proposal 1
-- Review of questions/concerns previously raised about proposal 1 as well as clarification provided by the proposer.
-- Regarding proposal 1, one member suggested that if .brand applicants are unsure if their string matches a city name they can do a wikipedia search. From this perspective the clarifications provided do not address the concerns raised.
-- Read through on proposal 2 (see slides for text).
-- One member noted that all of the cities in part (b)ii of this proposal are a subset of (b)i. They are not additional cities. From this perspective, adding (b)ii makes it easier for applicants to see which strings match city names so they are not surprised.
-- Reiteration of suggestion that there should be a minimum population in the definition of the term city. From another perspective, it should perhaps depend on the size of the country. For smaller countries, cities with smaller populations might be more significant.
-- Note that this topic has been discussed previously with different positions documented.
-- Review of rational for proposal 2.
-- Reiteration of concern that an applicant might want a TLD in association with a big city and instead obtain support from a much smaller city with the same name to secure the string.
-- Review of questions/concerns raised on proposal 2
-- Co-leaders


4. AOB
-- None


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20190905/5e20e68e/attachment-0001.html>