The next meeting for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 5 – Geographic Names at the Top Level will take place on Wednesday, 05 September 2018 at 05:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
(Tuesday) 22:00 PDT, 01:00 EDT, 07:00 Paris CEST, 10:00 Karachi PKT, 14:00 Tokyo JST, 15:00 Melbourne AEST
For other times: https://tinyurl.com/ydxq3n64
PROPOSED AGENDA
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins)
2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins)
3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins)
4. AOB (5 mins)
Background Documents
Work Track 5 - Working Document - 3 Sep 2018.docx
Work Track 5 - Working Document - 3 Sep 2018.pdf
WT5 meeting_5 September 2018_v1.pdf
Work Track 5 - Path to Initial Report - Clean - 5 Sep 2018.pdf
Work Track 5 - Path to Initial Report - Redline - 5 Sep 2018.pdf
RECORDINGS
PARTICIPATION
Apologies: Sanna Sahlman, Katrin Ohlmer, Alfredo Calderon, Jim Prendergast, Kristina Rosette, Carlos Raul Gutierrez, Jorge Cancio, Robin Gross, Rosalía Morales, Alan Greenberg, Marita Moll
Notes/ Action Items
Action Items:
ACTION ITEM 1: WT5 Co-Chairs will update the path to the Initial Report to indicate the timing for when the Working Document will be closed and the transition made to the Initial Report.
Notes:
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates: No SOI updates.
2. Non-AGB Terms:
-- On support/non-objection deadline: difficulty due to manpower/resources some countries miss the deadline. What is the point of having this tacit agreement -- deadline of 60 days, etc. and then no agreement? (Proposal 3/3 -- Notice and Opportunity to Object)
-- Good practice that the process for any applicant should know who the applicant should engage with and the process for engaging the government representative, i.e., from the GAC.
-- Does this include compliance to international law? (Slide 6 -- Principles Discussed).
-- Often not clear which body in the government is following these issues.
-- Repository of Geographic Names: Any support for that proposal? Helpful for cultural significance. Would serve as a useful basis for moving forward. It seems we would need to decide the names that need to be protected. What are we trying to protect?
-- List is the list of names that the government consider to be sensitive. It could be a reference and an opportunity for different parties to get together for agreement and to avoid conflict.
-- Don't want to develop policy that could be in contravention of local laws.
-- Once we go into this non-AGB area, strings could have multiple meanings. There could be a good intent on an applicant to use a string, but an applicant could use a list to discuss the intent with a local authority, but doesn't have to do so. It could be a risk that the applicant could take. Could be a practice rather than a policy.
-- List could be a useful reference point/guidance. In any case it could be helpful.
-- Need to discuss whether there are risk in registering geographics as top level domains and where they come from.
-- Could just be a list with a "health advisory" to talk to the governments, but you are not obliged to do so.
-- Re: Advisory Panel -- what is the composition of the panel? How are they elected?
-- From the first round. We've come to the point of defining what is a geoname or not.
-- Encourage members to review the working document and add suggestions.
-- Last 2 bullets (slides 9and 10) further clarity is needed, to insert proviso that applicant provides evidence of actual notice or request to RGPA.
3. Work Plan and Initial Report:
-- Parked the discussion of consensus calls until after the Initial Report.
-- Next 3 meetings (05 Sept, 19 Sept, 03 Oct) --- 2.2.1.4.2: Geo Names Requiring Government Support -- e.g., capital city names, city names used for a geographic purpose, etc
ACTION ITEM: Send to the list the Path to the Initial Report and note the timing for when the Working Document will be closed and the transition made to the Initial Report.
