The next meeting for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 5 – Geographic Names at the Top Level will take place on Wednesday, 20 December 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
12:00 PST, 15:00 EST, 20:00 London GMT, 21:00 Paris CET, (Thursday) 01:00 Karachi PKT, 05 Tokyo JST, 07:00 Melbourne AEDT
For other times: https://tinyurl.com/yd2y6l9j
PROPOSED AGENDA
1. Welcome; Updates on Statement of Interests (SOI)
2. Agenda review and length of calls.
The Co-Leaders have suggested that these calls be for 90 minutes, but since this call was announced for 60 minutes,
we shall decide at the beginning of the meeting about the duration of this and future calls.
3. 2nd reading of the draft Terms of Reference (already circulated by Staff)
4. Discussion on key risks and rules for geographic terms at the top level
5. AOB
Background Documents
RECORDINGS
PARTICIPATION
Apologies: Jim Prendergast, GZ Kabir, Jorge Cancio, Annebeth Lange, Kavouss Arasteh, Sebastien Pensis, Dave Kissoondoyal, Paul Rosenzweig, Luca Barbero, Aslam Mohamed, Kris Seeburn, Maureen Hilyard, Sanna Sahlman , Dessalegn Yehuala, Sala Tamanikaiwaimaro, Mzia Gogilashvili, Julie Hedlund (staff)
Notes/ Action Items
1. Welcome; Updates on Statement of Interests (SOI)
- No SOI updates
2. Agenda review and length of calls
- No proposed updates to the agenda
- This call is scheduled for 90 minutes
- No objections raised to making future calls 90 minutes in length
3. 2nd reading of the draft Terms of Reference
- One perspective –IDN’s are mentioned briefly in the TOR document, but we need to be aware of the fact that IDNs will be used more broadly in the future, and that they are an important part of the discussion regarding geographic names
- Clarifying question - sentence 1 in the Scope, regarding “Grounds for Objection” - there is no section in the Applicant Guidebook that specifically speaks to grounds for objection with respect to geographic names. To what does this text refer?
- Additional input - We need to focus first on the affirmative: what is a geo name, how are geo names reviewed, etc and then go into potential grounds for objection
- In cleaning up the draft Terms of Reference, we should make clear in that sentence that there is no section in the 2012 AGB "Potential Grounds for Objections."
From the chat:
Liz Williams: @Kristina...you are absolutely right. We must not start with objections. We must start with positives and a very open funnel and work downwards to dealing with objections which may be a very very long way in the future.
Robin Gross: What Kristina recommends makes sense. Better to start with defining geonames and then drilling down into the objection process for them.
Sara Bockey: Agree with Robin and Kristina
wafa Dahmani (AtLarge-ccNSO): +1 kristina
- Note on the Terms of Reference Google Doc: the beginning of the document includes a framework for handling suggestions, including those that were included and not included in the current draft. This text will be omitted in the final text of the Terms of Reference.
- The co-leads reviewed all comments and tried to work them in where possible, but if the comments were beyond that which is possible in the current context of a PDP WG frame, they were not incorporated into the current draft.
