Page History

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:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.

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.