Page History
...
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: Alan Greenberg, Justine Chew, Kristina Rosette, Maureen Hilyard, Marita Moll, Annebeth Lange, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar El Miniawi |
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items Action itemsAction items/notes: 1. WelcomeWelcome/Agenda ReviewAgenda Review/SOI Updates SOI Updates
2. Problems to be Solved from the 2012 round Problems to be Solved from the 2012 round From the chat: Katrin Ohlmer: Problem: CIty opposed application. Examples: .spa Possible solution(s): Require a pre-check to avoid delays and increase predictability. - Suggestion for a solution: GAC should work more closely with governments to make sure applicants reach the right focal point within a government in relation to obtaining supportare there cases the group can identify where there was an application that was coincindentally a geographic term but was applied for in non-geographic use and resulted in objection? Kavouss Arasteh: Ouzur departure point should always be the 2012 ERound, what problem we have identified for that round Kavouss Arasteh: For capital city, the example given by Alexander such as .Paris ,who we have to ciontact and in what sequence? France or Texas State ? - Challenge for this group identified in this exercise: members of the WT may not have visibility into the experiences of parties involved in the 2012 round. The WT may want to reach out to parties involved in the round for input about problems experienced. - Problem suggested: Challenge of potentially needing to reach out to multiple governments or public authorities to obtain support/non-objection for a single application. - Question: to what extent did applicants have difficulty working with city governments? Some city TLDs were run by the city and others had a more tenuous relationship with the city. This may be a business issue and not an ICANN issue to resolve. Kavouss Arasteh: Ouzur departure point should always be the 2012 ERound, what problem we have identified for that round - Slide 9: view of different perspectives expressed on possible paths forward for non-capital city names. Given the diversity of perspectives, is a possible middle ground to keep the 2012 protections? - Suggestion for path forward: focus on the process. From this perspective, there were some cases where a term was obviously geographic terms. There should be list. In other cases, the applicant may not know that a term has geographic meaning. - Comment Staff response to Katrin: In instances that the applicant did not identify a string as a geographic name but the geo panel found that it was a geo term, the applicant was given additional time to obtain support/non-objection from the relevant governments/public authorities. - Question: Could the use of PICs provide some of that assurance? - Comment: At some point we need to talk about process. It is premature to talk about process until we talk about what that process applies to. Disagree that everything included in the 2012 AGB should be restricted in the future. Sub-national place names are an example, .tata was a consequence. - Comment: For strings that are applied for that correspond to geographic term but are used in a generic sense, we do not yet have agreement about whether we need to treat these as geographic terms. - Comment: it is important to identify which governments/public authorities we are referring to in slide 9. In column 3/row 2 of the table, will need to be more specific about the proposals put forward regarding city sizeThere are attractive elements to reducing restrictions, but there is concern about stability of the outcome. The registry has to be protected against changes in governments and ex-post facto concerns raised. If we want to have predictability throughout the life of the registry there has to be a formal agreement between the registry and the government.
2b. Problems identified for non-AGB terms. - All are encouraged to share concrete problems and possible solutions on the list. - This agenda item will be addressed further in the future.
3. Focus on Implementation Guidance - Review of suggestions received so far regarding implementation guidance. - By reviewing implementation ideas, it may help the group think about issues to address at a policy level. - Examples: advisory panel, leverage GAC members to get input on geographic sensitivities, repository of geographic names, rules for strings that are similar to geographic term, online tool for applicants, applicant research requirements, government involved at contract renewal, mediation related to support/non-objection letter. - Comment: Concern expressed that anything that has a geographic meaning will be caught in the geographic "net." We can't take the text part of an atlas and say this is a restricted zone. We can't assume that everything that someone considers a geographic term is in fact a geographic term for treatment in the AGB. - Suggestion: We need to draw a boundary outside of which there are no additional rights, powers, or privileges for governments.
4. Looking Ahead: Work Plan and Initial Report Problems identified for non-AGB terms. 3. Focus on Implementation Guidance 4. Looking Ahead: Work Plan and Initial Report 5. AOBAOB |