<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" 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 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:"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:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",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.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.m-2100584411624512544msolistparagraph, li.m-2100584411624512544msolistparagraph, div.m-2100584411624512544msolistparagraph
{mso-style-name:m_-2100584411624512544msolistparagraph;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext, li.m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext, div.m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext
{mso-style-name:m_-2100584411624512544msoplaintext;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="DE-CH" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Dear Alexander<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Thanks very much for your efforts!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">As you will recall, I’m of the view (shared by others) that «intended use» should be eliminated altogether from the rule
applicable to city names – for the reasons that are on record.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Essentially, whatever the use, the TLD is a unique resource, and its delegation, even if the use is determined to be non-geographic,
means that the city identifier is delegated away… – this is IMO a sufficient reason to have the local authorities at the table before the applicant gets too far into the application process – so we avoid surprises and we also avoid the applicant investing
important sums before it is clear that all interested parties at least do not object.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Just as a reminder: Swiss cities (as cities in other countries following the civil code tradition) have rights under the
law on their names – the intended use is not a key factor in that respect. Therefore, they need to be consulted beforehand if we want to avoid conflicts in such situations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Kind regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Jorge
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="DE" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Von:</span></b><span lang="DE" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>
<b>Im Auftrag von </b>Alexander Schubert<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Freitag, 5. Oktober 2018 14:02<br>
<b>An:</b> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT 5 Suggestion: a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Dear Dessalegn,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Thank you for the question!<br>
<br>
My notion was that we utilize the foreseeable (projectable) actual “use” by registrants to determine the association with the city name. But maybe it avoids confusion if we would shorten it to:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#2E75B6">An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or
non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if:</span></i></b><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt">
<span lang="EN-US">2012 AGB: <b><i><span style="color:#2E75B6">a) It is clear from
</span><span style="color:red">applicant statements </span><span style="color:#2E75B6">within the application that the
</span><span style="color:red">applicant </span><span style="color:#2E75B6">will use the TLD
</span><span style="color:red">primarily </span><span style="color:#2E75B6">for purposes associated with the city name</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt">
<span lang="EN-US">Revision: <b><i><span style="color:#2E75B6">a) The </span><span style="color:red">geo name panel determines
</span><span style="color:#2E75B6">that it is </span><span style="color:red">foreseeable
</span><span style="color:#2E75B6">that </span><span style="color:red">registrants
</span><span style="color:#2E75B6">will use the TLD </span><span style="color:red">to a significant degree</span><span style="color:#2E75B6"> for purposes associated with the city name</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The English here is slightly garbled (two time “that” – not very eloquent) but now it is as short as the original and 2<sup>nd</sup>
level domains aren’t mentioned any more. And you are right: It’s mainly the gTLD portion of the domains registered by registrants that determine the “use”!
<br>
<br>
Has anybody any suggestion for a better wording? Is there some support for the notion that we should NOT rely on “statements of the applicant” but rather have a neutral body (geo name panel) using “common sense” to determine whether or not a letter of support
is needed; and at that on the basis of foreseeable actual “use” by the registrants? ICANN should (as discussed many times before) provide prospective applicants with the opportunity to have such test conducted many month ahead of the application period. This
way in the probably extremely rare case that an applicant would feel treated unjust they could prepare extra information and get extra evidence to bolster their “case”. Or they simply get the letter of non-objection.
<br>
<br>
What this “litmus test” does is essentially compare generic use with city use. A good generic term which has at least the CHANCE of fetching a high registration volume vs. a smallish city: No problem! But if somebody is targeting a city name that isn’t even
identical to a generic term (Shanghai, Chicago): then we can bust those who try to avoid the requirement of a letter of support by the city government.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0cm">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Alexander<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Dessalegn Yehuala [<a href="mailto:mequanint.yehuala@gmail.com">mailto:mequanint.yehuala@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, October 05, 2018 11:51 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">alexander@schubert.berlin</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT 5 Suggestion: a) The geo name panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dear Alexander,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Just one small comment on the text your proposed to be revised from the AGB 2012- "<b><i><span style="color:#2E75B6">a) The </span><span style="color:red">geo name panel </span><span style="color:#2E75B6">determines that
the </span><span style="color:red">foreseeable use of 2<sup>nd</sup> level domains by registrants </span><span style="color:#2E75B6">will be to a </span><span style="color:red">significant degree</span><span style="color:#2E75B6"> for purposes associated with
the city name"</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The WT5 is mandated to deal with issues that surround the treatment of geographic string identifiers at the top level, wouldn't 2nd level be out of scope?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dessalegn<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 5:49 PM Alexander Schubert <<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Hi WT 5,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Over the weekend I will submit a longer comment about the issue of the terminology in “recommendation 11” = non-capital cities (pages 4 and 5 of 21 in the word
document “<i>DRAFT - WT5 Initial Report - Sections C-E - 27.9.2018 - with comments-1</i>”)<br>
<br>
The text right now states (unchanged from the 2012 AGB) that applicants ONLY require a “letter of non-objection” from the relevant authorities (city government) if:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt">
<b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#2E75B6">a) It is clear from </span></i></b><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red">applicant statements
</span></i></b><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#2E75B6">within the application that the
</span></i></b><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red">applicant will use </span>
</i></b><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#2E75B6">the TLD </span></i></b><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red">primarily
</span></i></b><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#2E75B6">for purposes associated with the city name</span></i></b><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">I will elaborate on both: “<b><i><span style="color:red">use</span></i></b>” (by the applicant) and “<b><i><span style="color:red">primarily</span></i></b>”.
In my mind BOTH will have to be reversed:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msolistparagraph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span lang="EN-US">“foreseeable use” by the “REGISTRANTS” (rather than then “intended or projected use by the applicant entity”)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msolistparagraph"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span lang="EN-US">and not limited to “primary use”– but something like “significant use”. “Primarily” could arguably be considered “90% or more”. “Significant” would probably start at 20% or the like. The geo panel would need a few guidelines here as
well!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">I don’t care what or what not an applicant is dreaming of – that needs to be determined by the geo panel! If it is a closed brand application: obviously the case
is clear. If it is a generic term like “rock” (music) and there is a small city of a few thousand people named “Rock”: it’s kind of clear that the significant majority of registrants will use the 2<sup>nd</sup> level domains in connotation with “Rock Music”
(or other generic meanings of the term “rock” like moon.rock). But if somebody were to apply for an open gTLD .chicago, .shanghai or .frankfurt and would claim that there is “no primary use associated with the city intended” – sorry: then the applicant is
either delusional or tries to circumvent the necessity to acquire a letter of non-objection from the relevant city Government. This litmus test should NOT be outsourced to the APPLICANT – but it should be a task executed by the geo-panel. You can’t make the
goat the gardener. At least WE (ICANN) should not do so. A brand or a real generic term based application that is only “circumstantially” targeting a small city – that is one thing. Somebody applying for “.shanghai” trying to play tricks on the geo panel (and
in fact on the entire ICANN community, and the city community of Shanghai): not cool. Doesn’t fly.<br>
<br>
In my email I will also specifically explain why this is deemed a risk in the next round when there weren’t any notable problems in the 2012 round. If anybody is interested in hearing my notion on that problematic: shout out to me – and I will elaborate further.<br>
<br>
In that light I suggest the following language (this is so to speak the litmus test whether an applicant needs a letter of non-objection).<br>
<br>
<b><i><span style="color:#2E75B6">An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if:</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt">
<span lang="EN-US">2012 AGB: <b><i><span style="color:#2E75B6">a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the
</span><span style="color:red">applicant will use </span><span style="color:#2E75B6">the TLD
</span><span style="color:red">primarily </span><span style="color:#2E75B6">for purposes associated with the city name</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt">
<span lang="EN-US">Revision: <b><i><span style="color:#2E75B6">a) The </span><span style="color:red">geo name panel
</span><span style="color:#2E75B6">determines that the </span><span style="color:red">foreseeable use of 2<sup>nd</sup> level domains by registrants
</span><span style="color:#2E75B6">will be to a </span><span style="color:red">significant degree</span><span style="color:#2E75B6"> for purposes associated with the city name</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span lang="EN-US">This way a brand applicant should generally have no problem at all (closed gTLD). And an applicant for a generic dictionary term with broad utilization in the DNS should
also have no problems. But we would prevent that lazy (or cheating) applicants skip the line – and go for a city name WITHOUT looping in the city. That would be unfair to applicants that get the city’s support, unfair to the city itself and unfair to the city’s
constituents. <br>
<br>
Comments? It would be nice if members that support this language would make themselves heard. I would wish to see my recommendation prominently positioned in the report – that will only happen if my notion finds support.<br>
<br>
Alexander.berlin<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Julie Hedlund<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 04, 2018 12:43 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 03 October 2018<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext"><span lang="EN-US">Dear Work Track 5 members,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext"><span lang="EN-US">Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (03 October). <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, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted on the wiki.</i>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Please also find attached the
</span><span lang="EN-US">referenced document in PDF and Word including comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext"><span lang="EN-US">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext"><span lang="EN-US">Julie<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext"><span lang="EN-US">Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext"><span lang="EN-US">----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext"><b><span lang="EN-US">Notes/Action Items:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="m-2100584411624512544msoplaintext"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span lang="EN-US">Actions:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM: Preliminary recommendation #2: Add a footnote explaining what "character" means<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span lang="EN-US">Notes:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: No updates<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">2. Draft Initial Report Sections: Preliminary Recommendations, Options, and Questions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Comments about missing points -- the deliberation sections are still to come. This is just three sections of six.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- These are just arguments/recommendations/options at this point.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- The question is are these the right alternatives to put out for public comment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Questions for community input -- asking if these make sense and if anything is missing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Any content is subject to public comment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Preliminary recommendation #1:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Use of the word "certain" suggests there are other strings we have not addressed. Suggest deleting the word.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Can we make it clear here that we are talking about the AGB as written rather than as applied? I don't think we want as applied.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Preliminary recommendation #2:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Question: We don't give any explanation for why we are making this recommendation. Answer: The explanation will be reflected in the deliberations in the Initial
Report. Section C is just the text of the deliberations. There will be much more text in Section F on the deliberations, including pros and cons.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Looking at the last bullet point re: WT2 considering letter-number combinations -- should this also refer to number-number combinations?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote explaining what "character" means.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Preliminary recommendation #3:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Move this into the category of strings that could be applied for with documentation on support or non-objection.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- See also comments from Christopher Wilkinson.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- There were discussions about how many of these are generic words as well as three-letter country codes. There was a wider debate that was outside of scope
since it was ccNSO territory. With that in mind that is how we got to this recommendation. There was quite a lot of debate on this.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Do we need to clarify that we are not recommending that any 3-character codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard be removed from delegation? Or that .com should
be removed from delegation?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Could have country names that could be delegated -- if Canada wants .canada there should be a pathway for them to getting it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Not in favor of allowing the delegation of geographic names for non-geographic use.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Preliminary recommendation #4:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- The problem is that we have not gotten agreement on prior authorization and geographical use. As long as we have no consensus we have to maintain this restriction.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Recommendation #5:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Question: We say we recommend continuing something in the AGB but then we say it's a revision. Are we saying the AGB is inconsistent with GNSO policy? Answer:
Some members would like to see whether there is a discrepancy between the AGB and the policy -- so saying it is consistent with the AGB, but is not consistent with the policy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Suggest: "As noted above this recommendation is consistent with the AGB as written [not "as drafted"] and doesn't address the issue of translation of these
strings. However, this is a revision to GNSO policy..."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Agree with the change above but not the order. You had the policy first and then the AGB.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Maybe need an explanation somewhere at the beginning of the document.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Preliminary recommendation #6<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- The only thing that is listed are the code --- there are no names associated with a code as "exceptionally reserved".
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- This is a category that was in the 2012 AGB.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Example is "UK" -- The code is reserved on the ISO site, but not the name.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Append a list for the actual report.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- When there is something reserved it doesn't mean that it is connected the specific area where we talk about it. As to whether there is a list -- there used
to be a list available on request from the ISO secretariat. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Preliminary recommendation #7: No objections<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Preliminary recommendation #8: Third bullet has same issue as mentioned above -- No "exceptionally reserved" in the ISO 3166.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Preliminary recommendation #9: No objections<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Preliminary recommendation #10: No objections<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Preliminary recommendation #11:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Comments from the list:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Discussion of intended use is included in the deliberation section, including pros and cons.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Comment premature to include this preliminary recommendation as it stands.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Consider the use of the word "primarily" as in "use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name". Maybe it isn't quite the right word, but
we would want to avoid unintended consequences. Also, not clear what we mean by "use". This language was in the 2012 AGB -- not saying it was perfect, but don't recall this ever becoming an issue with a city name. Before we suggest changes let's look at
what happened in 2012.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- One could also say if the applicant considers any use for the city he will have to get a letter from the city.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- There has been a lot of back and forth on this issue -- we need to really take a look at whether we want to foreclose a bunch of words.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Ignores free expression rights to use words with geographic meaning in lawful ways.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Could address by putting in a contractual requirement that is more specific continuing to not use a TLD in a geographic sense.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Preliminary recommendation #12:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Need a separate recommendation dealing with the currency codes (ISO 4217). they are very important in the financial markets.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Don't support adding protection of the currency code.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- The sub-national place names should be open for reservation for non-geographic uses without a letter of support or non-objection.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">2. ICANN63:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Released 3 subsections of the Initial Report. Only a few comments so far.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Idea is to give people another week to submit comment, and then we will release the full package of the Initial Report.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Idea is that in addition to doing status updates and outreach at ICANN63 we'll have time to potentially get broader community input on issues, as well as to
note what might be missing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">-- Three sessions on Saturday morning with lunch at the last session.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>