2019-05-08 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5

Notes/ Action Items

Actions:

Country and territory names (see deliberations section f.2.2.2 for context), Question 13:

ACTION ITEM 1: Line 48 -- BRG -- change to “neither agrees nor disagrees”.

ACTION ITEM 2: Line 49 -- CITC -- change to “Divergence”.

Country and territory names (see deliberations section f.2.2.7 for context)

Question 15:

ACTION ITEM 3: Line 6 -- Government of Spain, etc. -- Change to “Concerns/New Idea”

ACTION ITEM 4: Line 16 -- IPC -- Change to “Agreement (Qualified)”

Names requiring government support/non- objections from the 2012 AGB (see deliberations section f.2.3.1 for context)

ACTION ITEM 5: Staff will review the section and add explanatory notes as necessary to suggest if there is support for more or fewer restrictions.

Question 17:

ACTION ITEM 6: Line 8 -- IPC -- Change to “Agreement (Qualified)”

ACTION ITEM 7: Line 10 -- Group of Registries -- change to “Agreement (Qualified)”

ACTION ITEM 8: Line 13 -- BRG -- Change to “Agreement (Qualified)”

Question 18:

ACTION ITEM 9: Line 33 -- INTA -- Delete the explanatory note and move to the column for notes.

Names requiring government support/non- objections from the 2012 AGB (see deliberations section f.2.3.2 for context)

Question 19:

ACTION ITEM Line 9 -- ALAC -- Change to “Agreement (qualified)”

Question 19, Variant 1 -- Supplemental Protections: Line 26 -- ALAC -- Agreement, Divergence

ACTION ITEM 10: Justine will check the comment.

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOI): Nick Wenben-Smith had an update
2. Continue Review of Public Comments -- Options/Proposals:

Country and territory names (see deliberations section f.2.2.2 for context) – start at line 8

Question 11:

Lines 8-15: Divergence, agreeing that strings should generally be made available.

Lines 16-25: Divergence

Question 12:

Line 27 -- RrSG -- Agreement

Lines 28-31: Agreement (qualified) and Divergence, strings should be made generally available

Lines 32-35: Divergence, strings should be made generally available

Lines 36-46: Divergence

Question 13:

Line 48 -- BRG -- [comment: this could be construed as support]

-- change to neither agrees nor disagrees with the idea

Line 49 -- CITC -- [comment: this could be construed as qualified support]

-- change to “Divergence”

Line 50 -- RySG -- Concerns, Divergence

Lines 51-55 -- Divergence, strings should be made generally available

Lines 56-66 -- Divergence

-- Concerns about the use of the term “divergence” -- characterize as “non-support”?

-- “Divergence” is the term we have been using.

Line 67 -- Group of registries -- [comment: proposal is unclear]

Country and territory names (see deliberations section f.2.2.6 for context)

Question 14:

Lines 6-10: Agreement

Lines 11-25: Divergence

Line 26: Government of Spain, etc. -- no position

Country and territory names (see deliberations section f.2.2.7 for context)

Question 15:

Lines 6 -- Government of Spain, etc. -- Agreement

-- Doesn’t agree that it should only be the country, so this should be changed to Concerns, New Idea

Lines 7-17: Agreement

-- IPC comment on line 16 -- seems that the IPC is not agreeing with any evidence that the country can provide; change to “Agreement (Qualified)”.

Line 18 -- BRG -- Concerns

Line 19 -- RySG -- Concerns (needs clarity)

Lines 20-24: Divergence

Line 25 -- Portuguese Government -- no position

Question 16:

Lines 27-36: Agreement

Line 37 -- RySG -- Agreement, Divergence -- The status quo did not allow for translations in this category

Line 38 -- United States -- New Idea, Concerns -- Seems to support adding translations, but only official languages of the UN and country

Lines 39-46: Divergence

Names requiring government support/non- objections from the 2012 AGB (see deliberations section f.2.3.1 for context)

ACTION: Review the section and add explanatory notes where there is general agreement or divergence to suggest if there is support or not for more or fewer restrictions.

Question 17:

Lines 6-11: Agreement

Line 8 -- IPC -- Agreement

-- Change to “Agreement (Qualified)”

Line 10 -- Group of Registries -- Agreement

-- This proposal is not the first choice -- change to “Agreement (Qualified)”

Line 12 -- United States -- Agreement (Qualified)

Line 13 -- BRG -- Agreement (preference, though open to compromise of existing implementation)

-- Change to “Agreement (Qualified)”

Line 14 -- RySG -- Agreement (qualified) Divergence

Lines 15-23: Divergence

Question 18:

Lines 25-32: Agreement

Line 33 -- INTA -- Agreement (can be inferred, since they refer an intended-use provision as a balanced approach)

-- Delete the explanatory note and move to the column for notes.

Line 34 -- RySG -- Agreement (qualified) Divergence

Lines 35-42: Divergence

Names requiring government support/non- objections from the 2012 AGB (see deliberations section f.2.3.2 for context)

Question 19:

Lines 6-9: Agreement

-- Change ALAC at line 9 to “Agreement (qualified)”

Lines 10-11 -- Group of Registries and IPC -- Agreement (Qualified)

Lines 12-13 -- United States and INTA -- Agreement (Qualified), New Idea

Line 14 -- RySG -- Agreement (Qualified), Divergence

Lines 15-22: Divergence -- includes changing BRG to divergence

Question 19, Variant 1 -- Supplemental Protections:

Line 24 -- INTA -- Agreement

Line 25 -- United States -- Agreement (Qualified), Concerns

Line 26 -- ALAC -- Agreement, Divergence

-- ACTION: Justine will check the comment.

Line 27 -- IPC -- Divergence (Qualified)

Lines 28-38: Divergence

Next Meeting: 15 May at 20:00 UTC -- Start at Question 19, Variant 2 -- Change in scope of protections