2019-08-07 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5

Notes/ Action Items

Notes:

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

2. Closure of Discussion on Languages/Translations (see attached document summarizing proposals that have been discussed on recent calls)

Slides: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-08-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Work+Track+5 

Slide 6: Base Proposal: change “in any language” to “UN and official languages”

Slide 7: Possible addition - relevant national, regional and community languages

Slide 8: Possible addition - transposition

-- Some objections, but also seems to be some general support.

-- Consensus doesn’t mean unanimity.

-- What we are discussing here, is whether we are able to recommend another solution than the 2012 AGB, based on public comments, discussions and meetings, both F2F and teleconferences.

-- The change of the rule on “all languages” causes collateral problems that we haven’t discussed.  Unless we have a solution that satisfies all positions it is better to maintain the current rule.

-- If we cannot find an improvement we have to fall back on the status quo.

-- Time to close this off today.

-- As long as we cannot find a compromise that is acceptable for all, we have said that status quo it will be. We have tried to find another option based on input, but there are still very divergent opinions.

-- The geoTLD group does not support the proposal to limit the protection to the official and UN language unless we were to agree on „the transposition of accented and diacritic characters in Latin-based scripts to their equivalent ASCII root“ will be included“.


ACTION ITEM: Hold this topic open until Katrin Olmer can consult with her group.

3. Closure of Discussion on Non-AGB Terms

-- Proposal from Jorge Cancio, in comments on list: “terms beyond the 2012 AGB rules with geographic meaning (e.g. adjective forms of countries, such as „Swiss“) which may be identified as such with a modicum of diligence by the prospective applicant and/or after consulting, under confidentiality terms, the Advisory Geonames Panel, shall be subject to a contact obligation with the relevant public authorities, in order to put them on notice.”

-- Object to the Advisory Geo Panel since we have not reached agreement to have such a thing.

-- Need more time to consider the proposal.

-- Is this proposal that one would have to contact the applicable GAC rep for the country in which the geographic term could apply?


4. Closure of Discussion on Changes to String Contention Resolution

Proposal -- Update Applicant Guidebook, Chapter 2.2.1.4.4 with: 

If an application for a string representing a geographic name is in a contention set with applications for identical strings that have not been identified as geographical names, the string contention will be resolved using the string contention procedures described in Module 4. 

Proposal -- Update Applicant Guidebook, Module 4. with: 

A// In case there is contention for a string where one application intends to use the string as a non-capital city name or designated the TLD to targeting it to a geographic meaning, preference should be given to the applicant who will use the TLD for geographic purposes if the applicant for the geoTLD is based in a country where national law gives precedent to city and/or regional names. 

RATIONALE: This would reflect national law e.g. in countries like Switzerland and Germany, where e.g. city names have more rights that holders of the same name. 

B// If there is more than one applicant for an identical string representing a geographic name, and the applications have requisite government approvals, the applicant with the larger no of inhabitants will prevail over the smaller one. As the criteria “size” has been used in the CPE criteria, it is apparently a well-accepted criteria.

RATIONALE: This would reflect the current rule of the Applicant Guidebook capital city has priority over smaller city.

-- Summarize comments concerning the proposal on the email list; Heather Forrest objects to the proposal and several WT5 members agree with her.

-- Seems like a proposal designed to do an end run around the community based application process by granting Community Based priority without the security community of Community evaluation.

-- If you've got two competing governments looking for the same string.  They should be in contact with each other and they should be encouraged to reach an agreement.

-- To summarize IPC members oppose the proposal and other supporting organizations and advisory committee members did not comment yet.

-- The sense from the room is that colleagues still need more time or we just don't have agreement.  Keep on the agenda for next week.

5. 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]

-- Proposals to either increase or decrease the scope of protections and the applicant. 

-- Elements of these proposals have been discussed in the context of revising draft recommendations as well as brother discussion in the world track. 

-- Public comments reflect that there is a mix of perspectives in the community on the different proposals.

-- Come prepared to discuss on next week’s call on 14 August at 14:00 UTC.