Page History
...
Info |
---|
PROPOSED AGENDA 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates (5 mins) 2. Non-AGB Terms (65 mins) 3. Work Plan and Initial Report (15 mins) 4. AOB (5 mins) Background Documents Work Track 5 - Working Document - 3 Sep 2018.docx Work Track 5 - Working Document - 3 Sep 2018.pdf WT5 meeting_5 September 2018_v1.pdf Work Track 5 - Path to Initial Report - Clean - 5 Sep 2018.pdf Work Track 5 - Path to Initial Report - Redline - 5 Sep 2018.pdf |
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Adobe Connect recordingRecording GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Attendance and & AC Chatchat Apologies: Sanna Sahlman, Katrin Ohlmer,Alfredo Calderon, Jim Prendergast, Kristina Rosette, Carlos Raul Gutierrez, Jorge Cancio, Robin Gross, Rosalía Morales, Alan Greenberg Dial outs: Kavouss Arasteh , Dessalegn Yehuala, Maureen Hilyard, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Juan Manuel Rojas, Bram Fudzulani, Vernatius Ezeama, Ejikeme (Elvis) Egbougu, Harold Arcos |
, Marita Moll |
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items Action Items: ACTION ITEM 1: WT5 Co-Chairs will update the path to the Initial Report to indicate the timing for when the Working Document will be closed and the transition made to the Initial Report. Notes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI updates: No SOI updates. 2. Non-AGB Terms: -- On support/non-objection deadline: difficulty due to manpower/resources some countries miss the deadline. What is the point of having this tacit agreement -- deadline of 60 days, etc. and then no agreement? (Proposal 3/3 -- Notice and Opportunity to Object) -- Good practice that the process for any applicant should know who the applicant should engage with and the process for engaging the government representative, i.e., from the GAC. -- Does this include compliance to international law? (Slide 6 -- Principles Discussed). -- Often not clear which body in the government is following these issues. -- Repository of Geographic Names: Any support for that proposal? Helpful for cultural significance. Would serve as a useful basis for moving forward. It seems we would need to decide the names that need to be protected. What are we trying to protect? -- List is the list of names that the government consider to be sensitive. It could be a reference and an opportunity for different parties to get together for agreement and to avoid conflict. -- Don't want to develop policy that could be in contravention of local laws. -- Once we go into this non-AGB area, strings could have multiple meanings. There could be a good intent on an applicant to use a string, but an applicant could use a list to discuss the intent with a local authority, but doesn't have to do so. It could be a risk that the applicant could take. Could be a practice rather than a policy. -- List could be a useful reference point/guidance. In any case it could be helpful. -- Need to discuss whether there are risk in registering geographics as top level domains and where they come from. -- Could just be a list with a "health advisory" to talk to the governments, but you are not obliged to do so. -- Re: Advisory Panel -- what is the composition of the panel? How are they elected? -- From the first round. We've come to the point of defining what is a geoname or not. -- Encourage members to review the working document and add suggestions. -- Last 2 bullets (slides 9and 10) further clarity is needed, to insert proviso that applicant provides evidence of actual notice or request to RGPA. 3. Work Plan and Initial Report: -- Parked the discussion of consensus calls until after the Initial Report. -- Next 3 meetings (05 Sept, 19 Sept, 03 Oct) --- 2.2.1.4.2: Geo Names Requiring Government Support -- e.g., capital city names, city names used for a geographic purpose, etc ACTION ITEM: Send to the list the Path to the Initial Report and note the timing for when the Working Document will be closed and the transition made to the Initial Report. |
Note |
Notes/ Action Items |