Page History

PROPOSED AGENDA

1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates
2. Closure of Discussion on Additional Categories of Terms Not Included in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook
3. Closure of Discussion on Changes to String Contention Resolution
4. Closure of Discussion on Non-Capital City Names
5. Final review of public comments - Proposals on Change to Scope of Protections/Restrictions
   • Covered in the 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]
6. AOB

Background Documents

WT5 21 August 2019 v1.pdf

Audio Recording

Zoom Recording

Chat Transcript

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

Attendance  

Apologies: Flip Petillion (standing apology), Marita Moll, Jim Prendergast, Martin Sutton

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:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.

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.