Page History

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

Mp3

Adobe Connect recordingRecording

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

Attendance and & AC Chatchat

Apologies: Sanna Sahlman, Katrin Ohlmer,Dial outs: Kavouss Arasteh , Dessalegn Yehuala, Maureen Hilyard, Cheryl Langdon-Orr , Juan Manuel Rojas , Bram Fudzulani, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez, Vernatius Ezeama,Alfredo Calderon, Jim Prendergast, Kristina Rosette, Carlos Raul Gutierrez, Jorge Cancio, Robin Gross, Rosalía Morales, Alan Greenberg, Marita Moll

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.