Page History
...
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: Flip Petillion |
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items Actions:
ACTION ITEM re: Final Discussion and Closure of Discussion on Non-AGB Terms – continue discussion on the list of proposals and any changes resulting from the meeting (see attached slides). ACTION ITEM re: Closure of Discussion on Changes to String Contention Resolution – continue discussion on the list of proposal and any changes resulting from the meeting (see attached slides). Notes:
2. Final Discussion and Closure of Discussion on Languages/Translations: -- Anyone think differently that there is no strong support for a path forward to change the AGB? -- Is that all the discussion on languages/translations? Yes, but doesn’t appear to be a strong way forward. -- Concern that if we don’t have strong support for a proposal here then we may not on any of the others. -- There has been lots of good discussion and ideas, but no strong agreement. -- Only three people suggested that we should continue discussion, so this issue is closed. 3. Final Discussion and Closure of Discussion on Non-AGB Terms: New proposal from Susan Payne and variation from Jorge Cancio: -- Support for the first point (adjectival forms), as this could prevent user confusion. -- Is there a list of adjectival forms of countries? -- We can rely on adjective forms of the established standards ISO 3166-1 and -2. -- In Jorge’s variant there is no open concept of geographical name. Also does not include a Geonames panel. Includes a closed list of terms. -- Merit of recognizing that one size doesn’t fit all. Not all governments care about geo names, but some do. -- To make it easier for the applicant we could let ICANN notify the governments. -- Support for Susan’s proposal? Strong support for the proposal. -- Support for Jorge’s proposal? Some support. -- Questions: Is the adjectival forms from the list? Is this in all languages (if we aren’t changing the AGB on languages)? Intent was only official languages. -- Need a concrete list of strings. -- If a country protects “by law” but not everything that has geographic meaning. Is that an element? Also this is only a notice requirement? -- What happens as a consequence of the notification? Demonstrate that you have made the contact (have tried). -- Are there no boundaries on what may be considered “terms with geo meaning”? Must be protected by law before getting on the list. -- How do we define “terms with geographic meaning” when national laws may not contain such a definition or may define the term differently? -- EU seems to have a list of adjectival forms for country names. -- Notification requirement lends itself to some sort of mediation procedure. Is that intended in the proposal? -- Doesn’t seem to be strong support for Jorge’s proposal, but there is for Susan’s. -- ACTION: Discuss on the list and put on the agenda for next week. How can we modify to get to a potential conclusion. 4. Closure of Discussion on Changes to String Contention Resolution: -- People who will lose out are those filing community application. Opposed for this and other reasons. Creates a class of super applications. -- Would a city name override a country name? The intent is not to put a city and a region into the same bucket. -- What we don’t have here is a rationale to put geographic uses of a name ahead of all other uses of a name. -- No clear direction for this proposal. -- ACTION: If there are any final revisions from Katrin put these forward on the list for discussion on the next call. |