Page History

Notes/ Action Items

Actions:

ACTION ITEM 1 re: Final Discussion and Closure of Discussion on Non-AGB Terms: Continue discussion on email list to close on 28 August. (See attached slides for propoposal(s))

ACTION ITEM 2 re: Closure of Discussion on Changes to String Contention Resolution: Continue discussion on email list to close on 28 August. (See attached slides for propoposal(s))

ACTION ITEM 3 re: Closure of Discussion on Non-Capital City Names: Continue discussion on email list to close on 28 August. (See attached slides for propoposal(s))

ACTION ITEM 4 re: Send comments/suggestions to the email list if there is specific support for further discussion.  See public comment summary document beginning on page 32:

 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rsyxCEBd6ax3Rb_w1kms_E9n29XL1_lw3Yp9XQ4TeCY/edit?ts=5ce64d6d# [docs.google.com].  For reference, full text of comments is available at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WKSC_pPBviCnbHxW171ZIp4CzuhQXRCV1NR2ruagrxs/edit#gid=543808477 [docs.google.com]

ACTION ITEM 5 re Geo Names Panel: Develop a definition.

Notes:

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

2. Final Discussion and Closure of Discussion on Non-AGB Terms:

-- Some support for Jorge’s proposal.

-- Support for notification.  Modification: ICANN geopanel to notify the applicant (variant from Alexander to Jorge’s proposal).

-- What would happen after notification?  Answer: No requirement after notification.

-- If ICANN is doing the notification then that would solve compliance.

-- Not sure understand the purpose of notification when all applications will be revealed.

-- System records on delivery of notifications may need to be considered.

-- Not sure how this proposal improves predictability or transparency for the parties.

-- Not all countries are following what is going on, so if they can be notified that will help to diminish the conflict.

-- It improves awareness of applicants to “problematic” strings and improves awareness of governments as to applications as to applications for such problematic strings.

-- Only a notification, not a creation of rights or expectation of conflict.

-- Might need more language that this is not creating a right/outcome as to grounds.

-- What is a “term with geographic meaning”?  Answer: No specific meaning, so rely on lists.

-- More clarity around this would be welcome, especially with respect to exact match limitation and agree with those who feel that closure must await a chance for all to weigh in.

-- How would a government know what to put on the list?  Answer: Governments should know their national law.

-- Concerns that we are ignoring the context of the proposed TLD and whether it will or will not create an association with a place.

-- Governments that want to protect place names within their jurisdictions use different level of instruments for that.  That’s why “national law and public policy” is an appropriate formulation.

-- ACTION: Continue discussion on email list to close on 28 August.

3. Closure of Discussion on Changes to String Contention Resolution:

-- Does part B apply to non-capital city name strings only?

-- Significant opposition to this proposal on the list and during the last meeting.

-- Concerns about priority.  Applicant goes to the top of the list (that meet the criteria).

-- Imposes one country’s national law on all concerns, regardless of location.

-- ACTION: Continue discussion on email list to close on 28 August.

4. Closure of Discussion on Non-Capital City Names:

-- Don’t support.  Should not promote adoption of anything “as taken” best to have specific text declared for avoidance of doubt.

-- Think the new text makes sense.

-- Concerned about “intent” as this opens the door to amendments.

-- Seems like the new text adds more clarity and reassurance.

-- Concerns about the word “primarily”.  This opens for using the TLD not only as a .brand, but also for other use as a generic TLD with subdomains.

-- Some support for the text and concern for the wording.

-- Add that the TLD is to be exclusively for .brand use?

-- Could be a mention that applying under spec 13 is an “indication that your intended use is non geographic”.

-- Why can the applicant be compelled to state their intentions clearly and completely instead of having something stated considered being “taken as” more?

-- They would be stating their intention quite clearly.  Concern could be addressed by tweaking the drafting.

-- ACTION: Give it another week for discussion.

5. Final review of public comments - Proposals on Change to Scope of Protections/Restrictions:

Proposal 8: Some support, some opposition.

Proposal 9: Some support, some opposition.

ACTION: Send comments/suggestions to the email list if there is specific support for further discussion.

 General ACTION: Define geo names panel.