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.
(Tuesday) 22:00 PDT, 01:00 EDT, 07:00 Paris CEST, 10:00 Karachi PKT, 14:00 Tokyo JST, 15:00 Melbourne AEST
For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y5mbqh53
PROPOSED AGENDA
- Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates
- Closure of Discussion on Additional Categories of Terms Not Included in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook
- Closure of Discussion on Changes to String Contention Resolution
- Closure of Discussion on Non-Capital City Names
- 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]
- AOB
Background Documents
RECORDINGS
PARTICIPATION
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:
- 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.