Page History
...
| Tip | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: Jim Prendergast, GZ Kabir, Jorge Cancio, Annebeth Lange, Kavouss Arasteh, Sebastien Pensis, Dave Kissoondoyal, Paul Rosenzweig, Luca Barbero, Aslam Mohamed, Kris Seeburn, Maureen Hilyard, Sanna Sahlman , Dessalegn Yehuala, Sala Tamanikaiwaimaro, Mzia Gogilashvili, Julie Hedlund (staff) |
| Note |
|---|
Notes/ Action Items 1. Welcome; Updates on Statement of Interests (SOI) - No SOI updates
2. Agenda review and length of calls - No proposed updates to the agenda - This call is scheduled for 90 minutes - No objections raised to making future calls 90 minutes in length
3. 2nd reading of the draft Terms of Reference - One perspective –IDN’s are mentioned briefly in the TOR document, but we need to be aware of the fact that IDNs will be used more broadly in the future, and that they are an important part of the discussion regarding geographic names - Clarifying question - sentence 1 in the Scope, regarding “Grounds for Objection” - there is no section in the Applicant Guidebook that specifically speaks to grounds for objection with respect to geographic names. To what does this text refer? - Additional input - We need to focus first on the affirmative: what is a geo name, how are geo names reviewed, etc and then go into potential grounds for objection - In cleaning up the draft Terms of Reference, we should make clear in that sentence that there is no section in the 2012 AGB "Potential Grounds for Objections." |
