The next meeting for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 5 – Geographic Names at the Top Level will take place on Wednesday, 14 August 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 16:00 Paris CEST, 19:00 Karachi PKT, 23:00 Tokyo JST, (Thursday) 00:00 Melbourne AEST
For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y64qaeja
PROPOSED AGENDA
- Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates
- Final Discussion and Closure of Discussion on Languages/Translations
- Final Discussion and Closure of Discussion on Non-AGB Terms
- Final Discussion and Closure of Discussion on Changes to String Contention Resolution
- Closure of Discussion on Non-Capital City Names
- Final review of public comments - Proposals 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 37
Please see 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]
7. AOB
Background Documents
RECORDINGS
PARTICIPATION
Notes/ Action Items
Actions:
ACTION ITEM re: Final Discussion and Closure of Discussion on Non-AGB Terms – continue discussion on the list of proposals and any changes resulting from the meeting (see attached slides).
ACTION ITEM re: Closure of Discussion on Changes to String Contention Resolution – continue discussion on the list of proposal and any changes resulting from the meeting (see attached slides).
Notes:
- Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.
2. Final Discussion and Closure of Discussion on Languages/Translations:
-- Anyone think differently that there is no strong support for a path forward to change the AGB?
-- Is that all the discussion on languages/translations? Yes, but doesn’t appear to be a strong way forward.
-- Concern that if we don’t have strong support for a proposal here then we may not on any of the others.
-- There has been lots of good discussion and ideas, but no strong agreement.
-- Only three people suggested that we should continue discussion, so this issue is closed.
3. Final Discussion and Closure of Discussion on Non-AGB Terms:
New proposal from Susan Payne and variation from Jorge Cancio:
-- Support for the first point (adjectival forms), as this could prevent user confusion.
-- Is there a list of adjectival forms of countries?
-- We can rely on adjective forms of the established standards ISO 3166-1 and -2.
-- In Jorge’s variant there is no open concept of geographical name. Also does not include a Geonames panel. Includes a closed list of terms.
-- Merit of recognizing that one size doesn’t fit all. Not all governments care about geo names, but some do.
-- To make it easier for the applicant we could let ICANN notify the governments.
-- Support for Susan’s proposal? Strong support for the proposal.
-- Support for Jorge’s proposal? Some support.
-- Questions: Is the adjectival forms from the list? Is this in all languages (if we aren’t changing the AGB on languages)? Intent was only official languages.
-- Need a concrete list of strings.
-- If a country protects “by law” but not everything that has geographic meaning. Is that an element? Also this is only a notice requirement?
-- What happens as a consequence of the notification? Demonstrate that you have made the contact (have tried).
-- Are there no boundaries on what may be considered “terms with geo meaning”? Must be protected by law before getting on the list.
-- How do we define “terms with geographic meaning” when national laws may not contain such a definition or may define the term differently?
-- EU seems to have a list of adjectival forms for country names.
-- Notification requirement lends itself to some sort of mediation procedure. Is that intended in the proposal?
-- Doesn’t seem to be strong support for Jorge’s proposal, but there is for Susan’s.
-- ACTION: Discuss on the list and put on the agenda for next week. How can we modify to get to a potential conclusion.
4. Closure of Discussion on Changes to String Contention Resolution:
-- People who will lose out are those filing community application. Opposed for this and other reasons. Creates a class of super applications.
-- Would a city name override a country name? The intent is not to put a city and a region into the same bucket.
-- What we don’t have here is a rationale to put geographic uses of a name ahead of all other uses of a name.
-- No clear direction for this proposal.
-- ACTION: If there are any final revisions from Katrin put these forward on the list for discussion on the next call.