<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="m_8457874254592908989WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal">Dear Work Track 5 members,</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">I trust this email finds you well.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you to everyone who participated in this week’s call and contributed on the mailing list to recent discussions. As documented in the meeting notes, there are several items that require your attention between now and our next call
on Wednesday 14 August at 14:00 UTC. Please see the slides from Wednesday’s call (attached) for background on these issues. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><br></i></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>By including these items in the email we are not implying that these proposals have support from the leadership team, but rather that we are attempting to assess whether any of these proposals are likely to receive consensus support as is or with some
level of modification.</i></b> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please provide your views on the proposals below by<b> tomorrow</b> <b>Tuesday, 13 August</b> to help the co-leaders assess whether any might be able to receive consensus support. Please include a rationale with your response.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u>-</u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u>1. Translations/Languages</u>: At this stage, there does not seem to be agreement to change the “in any language” standard for protection/restriction of Country and Territory Names and Capital City Names. If there is no agreement on
a specific change, the status quo from the 2012 New gTLD Round will remain. If you think the Work Track co-leaders have missed something and there is, indeed, a path forward that can achieve consensus, this is your final opportunity to raise it. However,
if there is agreement by the WG to change the “in any language” standard then the following two proposals will be considered.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A WT member had previously put forward a proposal on transposition of Capital City Names that was proposed as an addition to the “official and UN languages” proposal (see attached slides).
<b>For Capital City Names, require support/non-objection letter for the transposition of accented and diacritic characters in Latin-based scripts to their equivalent ASCII root. This would protect for example sao-tome as a DNS-Label of São Tomé alongside the
IDN version of the name (xn—so-tom-3ta7c). Additional example provided in the proposal: denhaag/den-haag would require letter of support/non-objection. </b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">An addition, a WT member has proposed the following: In AGB 2.2.1.4.1 Treatment of Country or Territory Names, replace “in any language” with:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">a. The official language of the country or territory; and<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">b. The de facto official language of the country or territory; and<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">c. The UN languages; and<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">d. The translations set out in a, b or c with the substitution of diacritical characters for ASCII characters, special characters, or spaces (eg. Austria as Österreich, or Osterreich).<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For the purposes of the Applicant Guidebook, a de facto official language of a country or territory is a language that is used for official translations of the country or territory’s national laws. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For 2.2.1.4.2 part 1 on capital city names, rephrase to the following language:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">An application for any string that is a representation of the capital city of any country or territory listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard in<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">a. The official language of the country or territory of the capital city; or<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">b. The de facto official language of the country or territory of the capital city; or<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">c. The UN languages; or<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">d. Either a, b or c with the substitution of diacritical characters for ASCII characters, special characters, or spaces (eg Den Haag as denhaag or den-haag, São Tomé as sao-tome, saotome, sãotomé, são-tomé)<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <i>Rationale:</i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>There appears to be general agreement in the work track that the current text referring to “all languages” is unmanageable and does not provide certainty for potential applicants. The concerns flagged around previous proposals to narrowing
the scope relate to uncertainty and a lack of predictability. Further, on the 17 July call the position appeared to me to be that UN languages were not necessarily relevant and excluded other relevant languages to communities. However, I appreciate that some
people feel strongly about this and have included them in the proposal. To ensure that relevant languages are relied upon and acknowledging not all countries and territories have a clearly defined official language, I suggest we include de facto official languages
with a clear and defined scope. Official translations of national laws are a public and verifiable source that is readily available and reflects the language(s) the people of the country or territory speak ie the language(s) are relevant. </i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><u></u><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span><u></u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u>2. Additional Categories of Terms Not Included in the 2012 AGB</u>: Last week, there was a final call for proposals that members believe could achieve consensus support on this topic. One proposal was put forward:
<b>“Terms beyond the 2012 AGB rules with geographic meaning (e.g. adjective forms of countries, such as “Swiss”) which may be identified as such with a modicum of diligence by the prospective applicant and/or after consulting, under confidentiality terms, the
Advisory Geonames Panel, shall be subject to a contact obligation with the relevant public authorities, in order to put them on notice.”</b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Other WT5 members suggest that this would only apply if the gTLD or string was being used in connection with the geographic meaning.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><u></u><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span><u></u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u>3. String Contention Resolution – Geographic Names</u>: Last week one proposal was put forward that required additional time for WT5 members to review:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Update Applicant Guidebook, Chapter 2.2.1.4.4 with: If an application for a string representing a geographic name is in a contention set with applications for identical strings that have not been identified as geographical names, the
string contention will be resolved using the string contention procedures described in Module 4. </b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u></u> <u></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Update Applicant Guidebook, Module 4. with:</b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>A// In case there is contention for a string where one application intends to use the string as a non-capital city name or designated the TLD to targeting it to a geographic meaning, preference should be given to the applicant who will
use the TLD for geographic purposes if the applicant for the geoTLD is based in a country where national law gives precedent to city and/or regional names.</b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>RATIONALE: This would reflect national law e.g. in countries like Switzerland and Germany, where e.g. city names have more rights that holders of the same name.</i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>B// If there is more than one applicant for an identical string representing a geographic name, and the applications have requisite government approvals, the applicant with the larger no of inhabitants will prevail over the smaller one.
As the criteria “size” has been used in the CPE criteria, it is apparently a well-accepted criteria.</b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>RATIONALE: This would reflect the current rule of the Applicant Guidebook capital city has priority over smaller city.</i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><u></u><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span><u></u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u>4. Member Proposals from the Initial Report on Scope of Protections (Proposals</u>
<b><u>6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 37)</u></b><u>:</u> Over the last couple of months, we have been referencing
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1rsyxCEBd6ax3Rb-5Fw1kms-5FE9n29XL1-5Flw3Yp9XQ4TeCY_edit-3Fts-3D5ce64d6d-23heading-3Dh.j7jy935ryg4k&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=ibk5NLRIVEyM8BmUAuiyFZFoV87dA6GCJADyQmNq0Zk&s=kqYJykVu4sGjVFR2cFjplDm81zbVZ0GnnkdEfx3RMbc&e=" target="_blank">
this document[docs.google.com]</a>, which summarizes comments on the WT5 supplemental Initial Report (full text of comments
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1WKSC-5FpPBviCnbHxW171ZIp4CzuhQXRCV1NR2ruagrxs_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=ibk5NLRIVEyM8BmUAuiyFZFoV87dA6GCJADyQmNq0Zk&s=Bsx0wWBZYVTvb6bMWJTTbgnuVlPV4GRSN_CBc22YpTM&e=" target="_blank">
here [docs.google.com]</a>). Beginning at the bottom of page 32 of the summary document, you will find a summary of comments on some of the proposals included in the report. Elements of these proposals have been discussed in the context of revisiting the draft
recommendations as well as broader discussions in the Work Track. Public comments reflect that there is a mix of perspectives in the community on the different proposals – some in favor and some opposed to each, similar to what the co-leaders have observed
in WT discussions. At this stage, the co-leaders do not anticipate that re-reviewing the proposals will lead to agreement in the Work Track on specific changes to the draft recommendations.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><u></u><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span><u></u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u>5. Non-Capital City Names</u>: A WT member has proposed amending the text in AGB 2.2.1.4.2 part 2 on non-capital city names by adding the blue text:
<span style="color:#4472c4">“It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name. For the avoidance of doubt, where the applicant states in their application that
they intend to use the TLD as a .Brand (intend to have Specification 13 in their Registry Agreement) it will be taken that the TLD will not be used primarily for purposes associated with the city name.”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i> Rationale:</i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>The current AGB text states that “city names present challenges because city names may also be generic terms or brand names, and in many cases city names are not unique”. This language does not aim to change the position from the AGB
2012, but merely aims to provide greater clarity and certainty for potential applicants. At the same time, it ensures that the relevant authorities are consulted when an applicant intends to use a TLD for purposes associated with a city. If a government or
local authority is concerned with an application, they are not precluded from filing an objection (as they could in 2012) or filing their own application. The current rules on resolving contention sets in AGB 2.2.1.4.4 or module 4 will not be impacted by the
text.</i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please remember to provide your views on these below by<b> tomorrow</b> <b>Tuesday, 13 August,</b> including a rationale with your response.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">Kind regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Olga<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div></div><div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br> <table style="border-top:1px solid #d3d4de">
<tr>
<td style="width:55px;padding-top:18px"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"></a></td>
<td style="width:470px;padding-top:17px;color:#41424e;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px">Libre de virus. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail" target="_blank" style="color:#4453ea">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"></a></div>