<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=Title content=""><meta name=Keywords content=""><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Arial;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Dear Work Track 5 members,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Please see below the notes from the meeting today. <i>These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript.</i> See the transcript and recording at: <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/eh1yB">https://community.icann.org/x/eh1yB</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Emily<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>ACTION ITEM 1: Plan a webinar (or two, to account for time zone concerns) on history of the issue in the next few weeks.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>ACTION ITEM 2: Add affiliation information to the Google Doc on definition of geographic names.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>ACTION ITEM 3: Develop a more concise summary of comments received on the definition of geographic names.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>ACTION ITEM 4: Consider developing a matrix version of the geographic names criteria in the 2012 AGB.<o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Notes:</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- No Updates</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>2. Agree on ToR (see attached) </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Need to get agreement on the draft circulated to the list. There have not been comments on the list since circulation.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Can still be circulated to community for their input but need general agreement on draft as WT5.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style='color:black'>To clarify, as the Working Group, we are the ones to approve the Terms of Reference. We can ask for comments, but at end of day we approve the ToR</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- This version is the final version, unless there are objections by WT5 members. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Sharing WT5 Terms of reference is courtesy, nut their approval and agreement is not required to be able to move to substantive discussions.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Terms of draft are approved, absent strong objections.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>3. Path to the 2012 AGB (History Lesson)</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Non-exhaustive list of background information shared with list</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Reviewing slides 6 and 7</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Is one of the goals to close the gap between the GNSO policy and 2012 AGB? Or is it also about rectifying issues identified?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- It apears that it should be both.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style='color:black'>The gap is the differential between the 2007 GNSO Policy vs what was implemented in 2012</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Did the Reserved Names WG develop the AGB? No, their recommendations were integrated into the GNSO's policy recommendations. Those recommendations were then implemented in the AGB.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Robin Gross: </span></b><span style='color:#FF0080'>Worth pointing out that the GNSO's "principle G" (which was approved by the GNSO and ICANN board) setting forth the new gtld program stated" The string evaluation process must not infringe the applicant's freedom of expression rights that are protected under internationally recognized principles of law".</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Robin Gross: </span></b><span style='color:#FF0080'>So this principle is still the approved policy</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Support for a more detailed webinar on the history of geographic names. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style='color:black'>We have heard the call for a webinar and will try to arrange for that in the next few weeks</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Emily Barabas: </span></b><span style='color:black'>List of background resources: </span><span style='color:blue'><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1JnqiUKHd9-5FaTLFMFQ0Rmft8GRUL7JSvGF7qS2xj7CAw_edit&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=nc-NvAdVumP1UAYWCjIMCPkQ2P-ZIuU-MQaCgXNv6GQ&s=tRdegFGCZafZacViZ8u6jKYIekiMxssc8XjfCVnUUZo&e=" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JnqiUKHd9_aTLFMFQ0Rmft8GRUL7JSvGF7qS2xj7CAw/edit[docs.google.com]</a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Series of issues during the implementation of policy (AGB), Board - GAC discussions, issues during process. Not just a single gap.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- List of background materials already distributed, but can be sent again.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>4. Definition of a Geographical Name (2012 AGB)</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Reviewing slides 9-10</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Issues in the 2012 round - some strings that some felt were geographic names that were not in specified lists.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Does the definition of a geographic name need to be adjusted?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Susan Payne GNSO/IPC: </span></b><span style='color:black'>Definitions are very important. We do need to be clear as we define, however, that not all geo names will necessarily be treated in the same way. This was also the case under the AGB (although as a number of people have commented it woul benefit from better and clearer drafting)</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>5. Definition of a Geographical Names: What needs to change? <i>(https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ooKmb576MQJvpHyDYOlJE3M2-Ssnv-SSgVfroT3D7Fc/edit#gid=0)[docs.google.com]</i></span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Reviewing summary of input received</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Commenters wish for more clarity in the criteria</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Comments received about the consultation process, especially about names not on lists.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Liz Williams: </span></b><span style='color:black'>@Olga...you are making an assumption that national and regional governments are the "pre-approvers" of any application. I think that notion needs further examination...so that we can avoid the problems of 2012 and previously...</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Sara Bockey: </span></b><span style='color:#432296'>Agree with Susan and Liz. In an effort to avoid conflicts, I would like the following be considered: a geographic name is a term/string that is associated with a geographic area and cannot be reasonably confused with any other geographic area or term.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Is the purpose of this call to define geographic names? Or try to fix problems that have not yet been identified?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Reviewing input received in Google document, does not necessarily indicate that changes are going to be made.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Paul McGrady: </span></b><span style='color:black'>@Jeff, understood, but don't we need at least a strawman definition in order to evaulate these comments?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style='color:black'>Paul - That was in the email as well. The strawman is the definition that was in the Guidebook</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Alexander Schubert: </span></b><span style='color:black'>Obviously WIKIPEDIA is NOT authoritive - but ALL of the 2012 round cases like .bar, .amazon or .tata would have been EASILY identified as geographic name if the applicant had just consulted WIKIPEDIA. So maybe a mandatory consultation of WIKIPEDIA (additionally to the requirement to check other lists) for ALL applicants would make sense</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Susan Payne GNSO/IPC: </span></b><span style='color:black'>I think the confusion is that the section in the guidebook isn't merely a definition, it also addresses how different types of names are treated - and the comments are focussed on treatment and not definition</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- There seems to be some confusion as there is definitions and usage and they both need to be considered.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style='color:black'>@Greg - if I can reword what I think you are saying.....it may help to come up with a definition of a geographic name without also including the implication or impact of something being defined as such?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Liz Williams: </span></b><span style='color:black'>@Greg...and this is the purpose of the schematic I was suggesting...to provide us with a sheet of what happened and then whether we can mitigate a problem or encourage further applications from small communities of 50K in a province of Morocco...</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style='color:black'>@Jeff, that’s the opposite of what I’ve said.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style='color:black'>Jeff, what I said was that we can’t consider the concept of a definition without understanding the effect(s) of the definition(s).</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Should be concentrating on the definition again, rather than zeroing in on the effects on spefic communities.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- The summary of comments may need to be distilled into something more streamlined.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Decide what is a geographical name, then decide how they should be treated. It can be an iterative approach.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Proposed: move forward in an iterative process. 1) review and revise definition of geo names 2) consider treatment 3) consider exceptions</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Heather Forrest: </span></b><span style='color:black'>It seems to me that we need a clearer methodology or structure for these discussions, or we risk getting lost in side-issues and losing sight of the ultimate task, the end result of which is a definition of names to receive particular treatment, and what that treatment is. Before we start discussing the treatment, we should be thinking about what names qualify</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Even if there is a wide definition, that should not presume that they will all receive the same treatment.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style='color:black'>The ultimate goal (I think) is to provide guidance to applicants when they ask themselves "Am I applying for a geographic name"? Then we do the next step. If the answer is yes, then......</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Heather Forrest: </span></b><span style='color:black'>Perhaps we should be framing this discussion as: What names (if any) deserve/require different treatment?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Susan Payne GNSO/IPC: </span></b><span style='color:black'>Would it be helpfulto break out the original definition into a chart so easier to read rather than the current text. for example headings would be type of name, then included in that you would have country and territory name, then a column of how that is currently defined (ie by reference tothe lists) and then,if you like, also acolumn for how currently treated.and so on?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Should all two-character strings (e.g., letter-digit) be prevented from application? </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Should two character IDNs be allowed?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style='color:black'>@Annebeth - true. We should separate ASCII and Non-ascii.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Suggestion for reservation limited to two-letter ASCII codes. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Nick Wenban-Smith (Nominet UK, RySG): </span></b><span style='color:black'>I don't see how number/letter combination would fall under any definition of geo name</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Susan Payne GNSO/IPC: </span></b><span style='color:black'>letter/number 2-character combinations are not country codes and therefore the original reservation of these terms is not a geo name issue.More like an implementation fault</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style='color:black'>@Susan - the rationale used by ICANN was all 2 characters......it was intentional</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Existing policy is to reserve 2 character strings.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Annebeth Lange, co-lead WT5: </span></b><span style='color:black'>Heather, it is originally a code-list, but it has been used for identifying countries as TLDs since 1984</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style='color:black'>@Annabeth, why? And is this your personal opinion or are you stating that as a co-lead of this group?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- Cannot existing policy be amended in this PDP?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style='color:black'>@Greg - Yes. I just wanted to clarify that it was existing GNSO Policy and that it was not an implementation detail. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p><b><span style='color:black'>Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): </span></b><span style='color:black'><Comment> Regarding @Heather's comment (What names (if any) deserve/require different treatment?) I think we must open ourselves to the possibility of a mechanism that could take into account the interests of recognized subnational cultural/linguistic and/or indigenous groups during the process of reserving a geographic name (which presumably is linked to that aboriginal culture or linguistic minority in a substantial way). -A longer version of my comment is included in thegoogle doc.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>- One agreed upon point in CCWG-UCTN, all two character ASCII strings should continue to be reserved.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:black'>6. AOB</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>