Page History
The next wwswThe next meeting for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 5 – Geographic Names at the Top Level will take place on Wednesday, 21 August 2019 at 05:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
...
Info |
---|
PROPOSED AGENDA
Background Documents |
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Attendance Dial out: Vernatius Ezeama Apologies: Flip Petillion (standing apology), Marita Moll, Jim Prendergast, Martin Sutton |
Note |
---|
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:
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. |